As a museum professional, I view this from two sides. One that the objects were donated to a museum for the purpose of "protecting and conserving" them. If they came to the collection by purchase, the intent of the curator or director who purchased the items was the same or similar. Having said this, my background is with history museums not art museums and I know these have different collecting philosophies. In a history museum, collection objects can be sold IF the proceeds are used for protecting and conserving the remaining collection. If the items go on the open market (they are usually offered to other museums first), then I view them as I do a gift I give to someone - it is theirs to do what they wish. Once the piece is sold, it is the buyer's to do with it as they wish. As a textile artist and history museum professional, I cringe at the "destruction" of pieces but if they were of a quality that someone should have preserved them, that person or organization had the same opportunity to purchase them as this artist. Artists recycle media to use as a part of their art all the time. It is a part of the life cycle of art. They do still live as a part of his art - just not in the form of the previous artist. You could say that the previous artist "defaced" the weaver who created the textile to begin with. Where is the origin and who gets to determine that? At what stage is it of such value that it needs to be preserved in that form? And again, who gets to determine that? To the larger picture, what is art and who gets to determine that? Is it the handspun yarn, the cloth, the clothing or the piece made from the clothing? And does one have a greater artistic value than any other?