I recently found this article talking about Gerhard Richter and how/why he destroy his own artwork (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/27/why-artist-gerhard-richter-destroys-his-own-art.html). His argument for doing so was that in doing so, it was like an act of liberation, as well as a way for him to maintain a control of sort over the narrative of his career. Before destroying his work, Richter does take pictures of them but regardless, the art itself can never really be recreated. While Richter is far from wing the only artist to destroy his own work (the article mentions Claude Monet and Jasper Johns as doing so as well), it never the less brought to mind this question of permanency of the art that we make, as well as further questions of permanency itself. I delved into this concept over the summer, questioning permanence of memory utilizing photography, and reading about how Richter remembers artworks only through photographic images and his own memory of it was an interesting add on in thinking about this concept. How do was as artists ensure the permanence of our artworks that we create? In destroying our own artwork, we essentially give ourselves the ability to begin anew with no limitations, but we also lose a part of ourselves that is left in the artwork from when we made it.
This is an extremely deep question that I find myself starting to think about more and more, in particular the idea of larger idea of permanency in multiple contexts outside of artworks. Permanency of myself in the location I am teaching in and of lessons “learned” by students (and furthermore, how permanent is knowledge itself?).