Re. Duplicate Sales

[Lorrin Wong <71301.324@compuserve.com>]

I'd like to add one more comment from another perspective to the expanding
duplicate sales thread.

I am a contemporary art collector and also in the over 50 category. For the
past several years my wife and I have contemplated the ultimate disposition
of our collection, which will go to one or more public institutions.

Although we have invested untold hours in accumulating our collection and
more funds than we ever dreamed imaginable, we've never assumed that our
collection, once donated, would remain intact "forever." We attach great
sentimental and emotional value to each piece. Yet, being in the
contemporary arena, it would not be surprising if some work might draw
modest or no future interest from the public, researchers or museums after
the passage of time. And, we recognize that a musuem's
acquisition/collecting interest may change over time.

In addition to an interest in our collection, we require the museum to be
well managed and have indications of adequate resources to maintain its
assets. But twenty or fifty years from now, who knows?

Each piece in our collection is "unique." There are, for example, no prints
in the collection. Arguably, there will be no potential for duplicates with
the museum's collection. However, a museum only needs a certain number of
work by a particular artist during a particular period and in a particular
style. How many Andy Warhol photolithographic paintings from 1968 does one
need before one has a representative sample? Simple uniqueness isn't an
adequate criterion for retention.

In the art world it isn't uncommon that evaluations re. a work's quality
are made and accumulate over time. While some accumulators would
undoubtedly desire to retain every collectible item possible, it seems to
me that a reasonable objective of a collecting museum is to retain work
which is consistent with its focus and of high quality. If a work doesn't
meet those criteria, then it either shouldn't be acquired and/or it becomes
a candidate for deaccession. Or if the museum acquires better work at a
later period in time, then it seems appropriate that the lesser work (even
if it were from our collection) becomes a candidate for deaccession.

We plan to give the collection to a museum(s) that will retain as much of
the collection as possible. But if they don't want/need some of it or if in
the future they deaccess parts of it, then that's what will happen. Will
that diminish my feeling toward the work or the accumulation of work? I
don't think so. Will I be upset? Perhaps, a little but not in a major way.

We are not the Fricks or Rockefellers. Our collection is a page in a long
and continuing history. We believe that viewers and/or researchers will
gain some appreciation of its period in history when viewed as individual
work or as a collection. But it's hardly a monument. There are large gaps
and the consistency of the work is uneven. Even I know that.

However, it was the best we could do under our circumstances. And there are
some great pieces that virtually any museum with a contemporary collection
would want. We'll do a competent job of identifying the donee museum and
after that, time will tell. However, we both feel that whatever wisdom and
vision we have exercised will best be demonstrated and the greatest public
impact by leaving our collection with an institution than putting it up for
auction and having an auction catalog as a remembrance.

Lorrin Wong