What I think the Ending of Whiplash insinuates about legacy:

I've only seen Whiplash once (which ikik, filmbro cardinal sin right there) but I've been thinking about it as of late, especially the ending. Chazelle, as all great directors, has encouraged diverging viewpoints on the ambiguous ending, but state that he himself views it to be a sequence that cements the story as a cautionary tale rather than a triumphant moment, I very much agree as I'm sure many of you do as well as it's hard to make any justification for Andrew's actions to get to where he got.

The ending is abrupt. We do not see any of the aftermath of Andrew's performance, potnetial success, or a continued downfall. It's up for interpretation. I believe that's a reflection of legacy; Andrew doesn't know whether his achievements will bring about anything meaningful (as in beyond his death, something that outlives him), therefore he'll never know if he truly became one of the greats.

The only time in the film when Andrew is seemingly fully content is at that last performance, albeit for arguably terrible and self destructive reasoning. I think this is Chazelle clearly encouraging satisfaction with what you have now (with healthy room for continuous improvement) as you being able to create something that outlives you is completely out of your control, and should simply be a byproduct of what you were meant to do, not a goal. As all the legacy is, is the proverbial end credits we don't get to see.