Impermanence in the "Permanent"

When can solid and permanent looking artwork comprised of structure/materials having permanence capture impermanence? Is it enough that the elements are removable and rearrangeable to conform to different spaces, or for that matter, to different aesthetic tastes, the impermanence being one of context and/or arrangement? Is metaphor sufficient -- a solid form with the shape and appearance of something much less permanent? How much fragility is needed to project vulnerability? How much solid weight is need to project stability?

Charle's Ray's Cypress in the Art Institute is a carved replica of a fiberglass replica of a found fallen tree, carved out of Cypress, eventually bound to decay as the Cypress wood itself, after 400 years of relative stability, decays over a period of 600 years. I would expect a found bit of tree to look more deteriorated and decayed than does the carved cypress. It looks permanent, with impermanence conveyed only in the posted information that it will decay eventually. Distractions from impermanence include the absence of moss and fungi and the singularity of the carving's color. Oil paintings deteriorate and crackle with age, showing impermanent natures more quickly than might this wood carving.

Eva Hesse's Untitled fiberglass and polyester resin over cloth-covered metal wire with metal grommets (variable in installation) manages impermanence in "permanent" form, partly from its form's -- a hanging rope ending in a coil -- the association with temporariness as an image.