THE HOLDINGS OF Southampton City Art Gallery form one of the finest regional collections in Britain and were ‘designated’ ten years ago as being of ‘pre-eminent national significance’. Although in comparison with other city museums it is relatively young (founded 1939), it has managed, through enlightened direction and excellent advice, as well as through gifts and bequests (of objects and funds), to build up an outstanding collection. It is particularly known for its good small group of Dutch and Flemish pictures, its French Impressionist-period paintings (Monet, Boudin, Renoir, Sisley and Pissarro, for example – rare to find so coherent a galaxy in a regional mus­eum), its highly representative holdings of twentieth-century British art and its exceptional contemporary collection (by, among others, Whiteread, Doig, Rae and Davenport). It has particular highlights within these groupings – a beautiful Jordaens, a fine selection of Sickert and the Camden Town Group, homegrown Surrealism and good St Ives paintings, especially by Roger Hilton. That it also has some curiosities and works that do not sit easily with the strengths of the collection (a painting by Massimo Campigli; a sculpture by César) almost goes without saying. Recently, Gallery staff were asked by Southampton City Council to review all works in the collection in terms of their significance – from high to moderate, from core to non-core. Two outside curators from national collections acted as advisers, in line with the Gallery’s governance. But this review was not undertaken for its own sake (as the two advisers believed); it was used to weed out those works that might be profitably disposed of – in effect works that fell outside the main programme of acquisitions and would prove valuable on the market.

The City Council requested this review because it needs funds to finance a grandiose scheme of ‘heritage projects’ (including, it must be said, greater space for the City Art Gallery) to be gathered together in a Cultural Quarter. A bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund for this scheme is under consideration, the result to be announced in October. Doubtless those responsible for the initiative of selling works from the Gallery thought it a clever expedient that would gain immediate public support. And indeed, one local newspaper has already been congratulating itself for its backing of the Council’s plan to ‘flog the family silver’ in order to help finance, in particular, a new visitor attraction devoted to RMS Titanic, the unfortunate liner that sailed from Southampton Docks in 1912, only to sink five days later. Belfast, where the liner was built, has pre-empted Southampton with a vast Titanic Experience opening in that city in 2012. Surely one is quite enough? Admirable though its other projects may be, the Council would be misguided, at the very least, in ordering the sale of works from its collection.

The arguments against disposal from public collections – de-accessioning – are many and familiar but need constant iter­ation in the face of the increasing mudslide of often uninformed public support for such action, invariably ignited by opportunistic local councillors. Here are some of the more important arguments:
1. Collections accrued over the years are repositories of works assembled for different and fascinating reasons; as such they form a valuable index of public taste at several levels.
2. Once a work is disposed of, the decision is irreversible.
3. The argument that if a work is not on show and is ‘locked up in the cellars’, it is ‘lost’ to the public is patently absurd. Requests to see a work or works temporarily off show are nearly always treated sympathetically and quickly by curators and registrars. Rotation of works on view is a frequent and refreshing aspect of display in museums with limited space; highlights of a particular collection tend to be permanently on show.
4. If a museum, and the local authority under whose jurisdiction it lies, come to be seen as disposers, they will inevitably attract negative publicity within much of the professional museum world. Charities and fund-awarding bodies, particularly for acquisitions, are bound to ask serious questions when considering grant applications.
5. Benefactors with the intention of giving or bequeathing works to a museum that de-accessions will think twice.
6. Money raised by the sale of works of art is rarely going to make a substantial contribution to whatever project the local author­ity has in its sights. Looting its most valuable or celebrated possessions is out of bounds.

In an Editorial here two years ago on regional museums, it was noted that Southampton City Art Gallery ‘has no funds for acquisitions from the local authority; it is pitifully short of space [and] has suffered heavy staff cuts’.2 Nothing has changed. Nevertheless it has continued to acquire works even in the face of opposition. In 2007 local protest greeted the purchase for £250,000 of Bridget Riley’s painting Red movement, in spite of the fact that it cost the ratepayer not a penny, its purchase price met by grants and acquisition funds, and that it was followed by a gift from the artist of related works. The Riley is certainly a ‘core’ work in the collection but the two works so far announced as candidates for sale apparently are not – a bronze by Rodin (partly, it seems, because the lucky Gallery owns two) and a handsome equestrian painting by Sir Alfred Munnings PRA which, contrary to reports, has indeed been displayed in the Gallery in recent years and provides a perfect point de départ for and counterpoint to the more adventurous aspects of modern British art in the collection. But Munnings fetches money. The sale, however, is still undecided and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) is, it says, in ‘full dialogue’ with Southampton on the ethical impli­cations and legal procedures of the proposal. We can only hope it will, for once, advise firmly against it. It would be an unpardonable indignity if, for entirely political reasons, this fine collection were to be diminished and its profile much reduced.

In an Editorial here two years ago on regional museums, it was noted that Southampton City Art Gallery ‘has no funds for acquisitions from the local authority; it is pitifully short of space [and] has suffered heavy staff cuts’.2 Nothing has changed. Nevertheless it has continued to acquire works even in the face of opposition. In 2007 local protest greeted the purchase for £250,000 of Bridget Riley’s painting Red movement, in spite of the fact that it cost the ratepayer not a penny, its purchase price met by grants and acquisition funds, and that it was followed by a gift from the artist of related works. The Riley is certainly a ‘core’ work in the collection but the two works so far announced as candidates for sale apparently are not – a bronze by Rodin (partly, it seems, because the lucky Gallery owns two) and a handsome equestrian painting by Sir Alfred Munnings PRA which, contrary to reports, has indeed been displayed in the Gallery in recent years and provides a perfect point de départ for and counterpoint to the more adventurous aspects of modern British art in the collection. But Munnings fetches money. The sale, however, is still undecided and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) is, it says, in ‘full dialogue’ with Southampton on the ethical impli­cations and legal procedures of the proposal. We can only hope it will, for once, advise firmly against it. It would be an unpardonable indignity if, for entirely political reasons, this fine collection were to be diminished and its profile much reduced.