Stephen Foster, director, John Hansard Gallery, University of Southampton
"The current Museums, Libraries and Archives Council Guidelines on de-accession policy clearly need to be reviewed. They are anachronistic and inflexible.
On the face of it, Southampton's current proposals make a compelling case for the disposal of two works for the long term benefit of the collection. Unfortunately, once the precedent is set, there is a danger that further disposal could become inevitable.
The boundaries by which the benefits of such sales can be identified are likely to be tested to the limit in order to resource further fashionable pet projects. This pattern could be repeated elsewhere, which would lead to irreparable damage amongst our great collections nationally."
Sally Wrampling, head of policy and research, Art Fund
"Whilst Southampton's plans to develop its cultural offering are welcome - as is its transparency over this issue - raising the funds in part by selling important artworks from its gallery sets a dangerous precedent.
It effectively sanctions the disposal of art from publicly-owned collections to support other areas of public sector provision.
The MA code of ethics states that museums should not undertake disposal 'principally for financial reasons, except in exceptional circumstances'.
Selling art to help fund the shortfall for a new museum is not an 'exceptional circumstance'. The council must explore other avenues before selling any of its permanent collection to raise funds."
Les Buckingham, Southampton Save Our Collection Campaign
"No. The proposal is undemocratic, unethical and unsustainable.
It is undemocratic because to date not one citizen of Southampton has been asked if they agree with the principle of selling works.
It is unethical because the move is purely for financial gain - the political leadership of Southampton has stated categorically that there will not be a new museum unless money comes from the sale of two pieces from the art collection.
It is unsustainable because works can be sold, to quote the MA code of ethics, in 'exceptional circumstances'. These 'exceptional circumstances' in Southampton, of adding to the viability of a great art collection by building a heritage centre have not been proved in any respect."
Caitlin Griffiths, head of workforce development and events, Museums Association
"It was probably only a matter of time after the Code of Ethics was changed in 2007 to allow for financially motivated disposal in exceptional circumstances before a museum proposed to do what Southampton Council are now considering.
Although financially motivated disposal is now permissible, it is not an easy option as museums have to meet a number of strict conditions if they want to follow this course of action.
Southampton has said from the beginning that it wants to ensure its proposals meet the sector's ethical standards, and the MA and its ethics committee will be reviewing Southampton's plans to see if they meet these requirements.
"The current Museums, Libraries and Archives Council Guidelines on de-accession policy clearly need to be reviewed. They are anachronistic and inflexible.
On the face of it, Southampton's current proposals make a compelling case for the disposal of two works for the long term benefit of the collection. Unfortunately, once the precedent is set, there is a danger that further disposal could become inevitable.
The boundaries by which the benefits of such sales can be identified are likely to be tested to the limit in order to resource further fashionable pet projects. This pattern could be repeated elsewhere, which would lead to irreparable damage amongst our great collections nationally."
Sally Wrampling, head of policy and research, Art Fund
"Whilst Southampton's plans to develop its cultural offering are welcome - as is its transparency over this issue - raising the funds in part by selling important artworks from its gallery sets a dangerous precedent.
It effectively sanctions the disposal of art from publicly-owned collections to support other areas of public sector provision.
The MA code of ethics states that museums should not undertake disposal 'principally for financial reasons, except in exceptional circumstances'.
Selling art to help fund the shortfall for a new museum is not an 'exceptional circumstance'. The council must explore other avenues before selling any of its permanent collection to raise funds."
Les Buckingham, Southampton Save Our Collection Campaign
"No. The proposal is undemocratic, unethical and unsustainable.
It is undemocratic because to date not one citizen of Southampton has been asked if they agree with the principle of selling works.
It is unethical because the move is purely for financial gain - the political leadership of Southampton has stated categorically that there will not be a new museum unless money comes from the sale of two pieces from the art collection.
It is unsustainable because works can be sold, to quote the MA code of ethics, in 'exceptional circumstances'. These 'exceptional circumstances' in Southampton, of adding to the viability of a great art collection by building a heritage centre have not been proved in any respect."
Caitlin Griffiths, head of workforce development and events, Museums Association
"It was probably only a matter of time after the Code of Ethics was changed in 2007 to allow for financially motivated disposal in exceptional circumstances before a museum proposed to do what Southampton Council are now considering.
Although financially motivated disposal is now permissible, it is not an easy option as museums have to meet a number of strict conditions if they want to follow this course of action.
Southampton has said from the beginning that it wants to ensure its proposals meet the sector's ethical standards, and the MA and its ethics committee will be reviewing Southampton's plans to see if they meet these requirements.
