{"word_count": 304, "character_count": 1992}
The Wilmington Library plans to pay for a new roof, heating and air conditioning system and other repairs for its Rodney Square building by selling 14 illustrations N.C. Wyeth painted for the 1920 publication of "Robinson Crusoe."http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009905070356There is now a discussion in the EXLIBRIS list on this topic. Here is my opinion:All deaccessioning is bad if there is a loss of cultural property.(i) Cultural property (or heritage) is a property of the public. It'sthe tangible counterpart of the PUBLIC DOMAIN.(ii) All deaccessioning is bad if the work in question is part of anensemble (provenance) which deserves protection as a whole.(iii) All deaccessioning is bad if there is any doubt that the donorof the item wouldn't agree. He has in most cases given the work in a"safe harbour" not to a "chamber of assets" which can be made to moneyin a financial crisis. If the work wasn't donated the opinion ofimportant donors should be heard. Selling a work can have collateraldamages for the institution-donor-relation.(iv) All deaccessioning is bad if it is made in a non-transparentclandestine way. There must be a public discussion in which all voicesshould be heard.(v) Each cultural institution is a part of a boader network ofheritage preserving institutions.(vi) If a work is selled at auction there is a high risk that uniquepieces will disappear in private collections not available to thepublic.(vii) If a rare non-unique work is selled at auction there is a riskthat scholars have to make long travels to find another copy.(viii) Deaccessioning is bad if pseudo-duplicates are selled which areunder some aspects unique (provenance, written marginalia, etc.).(ix) Deaccessioning is bad if there is an at least minor loss of trustin the persuasion that the institution takes serious the duty topreserve heritage for the posterity. The "collection's scope" cannotbe changed arbitrarily.This is an opinion of an European point of view.