Goldsworthy,archivaleness and artistic rip off

While channel surfing on TV I happened upon the film Andy Goldsworthy's Rivers and Tides. Don't know how i've missed this film but I highly recommend it. Goldsworthy works with nature. He takes what is available and fashions great art. I don't think it is a concern of his that the raw materials of his art will ever dry up. If there is no more lambs wool to make art from he moves on and does it with stones or boulders. What was interesting to me was his attitude about the permanence of his art. He would find red iron containing dirt and make little puudles of red water or just throw the dirt into the river and create a red waterfall. Very impermanent,non archival art. It just does not matter to him. What mattered was that he made art at that moment. Many of us strive to attain the maximum life for the art that we make. Why? I use a ton of selenium and not quite a ton of gold in my work. But it's not for the purpose of permanenece . It's all about the color. Do you really care if your prints last 500 years? Why do you care?
If I'm wandering the Scottish moors and I happen on a Goldsworthy piece out in the boondocks and I photograph it is the photograph mine or have i stolen it from Goldsworthy. If Goldsworthy photographs his own environmental pieces is he a photographer or just an artist recording his work? Much like photographers making slides of their prints. Which, of course, brings up Sandy Skogland. Photographer or sculptor? Perhaps its all just ART and it all becomes one. What do you think?
Jack B Severian-Autarch of Urth

What happens if you are wandering the moors and find a piece that isn't by Andy Goldsworthy?

Well to start with, Goldsworthy does his work all of the world, including Santa Fe and New York. I've see his work in both places.

He also photographs his art and does a wonderful job at that too.

But for him, his work is temporary and he and every one else knows that. Even the long, wiggly walls he builds are temporary because over time, they will change.

People buy photography, not only for the subject, but also because of the perceived permanence. I too use selenium because I have been taught and told that this will help the image last longer. Is the additional 50-100 years that important to me or my buyer? I am not sure. Won't a fresh two bath fix last long enough? If so, how long is enough?

I've always wondered about producing work that would change over time. Like doing a series of portraits that aren't fixed or washed long enough so that they change over time. I think it would be interesting, but I fear the rest of the world would think I am nuts.

Is Alfred Stieglitz's photograph of the Flatiron Building in New York a rip-off because he didn't build it? Or did he bring/add his own vision to it?