I am fascinated by the idea of artists attempting to edit their oeuvres. I love that some artists make work and then, usually after achieving a certain degree of critical or market-based success (is this the same as "artistic maturity"?), state that even though such-and-such work was once considered art, it is no longer "art." I think the reason I like this so much is that it suggests that the artist can perform a kind of alchemy, designating or denying art. But really, it brings into focus the role of the artist in legitimating or validating his or her work (in cases of disavowals, mostly his, though Agnes Martin, an example not discussed in this article, did destroy and disown early figurative paintings).
Once art always art? Or is "art" up to the artist?