Here’s your chance to booze it up at the tax payer provided facility in the company of Suffolk’s elite, the most politically privileged classes of a society. No need for a designated driver, what cop in his right mind would approach anyone involved in this annual affair and suggest blowing into a machine, or walk a line this time of night especially if that person were attired in rented tux or formal gown, It just isn’t done if the event dispensing hard stuff is to foster any part of culture. After all, they are guilty only of a little fun while raising funds for those who, hopefully, will follow in their footsteps.
16 comments:
While I can no longer speak for the Suffolk Center, I would like to respectfully address some of the points brought forth in this post. I'm aware that the author is vehemently opposed to taxpayer subsidy of the arts center, but Art D'Vine is a fundraiser, and a very successful one. While no community arts center exists without some level of public funding, successful fundraisers like Art D'Vine help assure that taxpayer support is leveraged to the advantage of the community. The event is not subsidized by taxes; instead, it provides non-public revenue to drive the Suffolk Center’s missions of outreach and education. This is equally true of the performances, such as that by Al Stewart, that are sometimes decried as overly expensive. Certainly they, like Art D'Vine, attract those with disposable income. It is easy to misinterpret that these events are put on “for the rich”. But it’s all a part of the whole—the shows and fundraisers attract folks who help the SCCA support programs such as the Suffolk Children's Chorus, the Suffolk Community Theater Players, its partnerships with the Boys and Girls Club, and its affordable classes, free gallery shows, and educational outreach to local schools. The Suffolk Center exists to improve lives, and in my 2½ years working there I saw that happen over and over. So let the well-heeled buy a ticket, bid on some artwork, raise a glass or two—but please keep in mind that every dime earned that night will fund a scholarship, send an artist to a local public school, or repair a pottery wheel used by a senior whose hands, and mind, might otherwise be idle. I personally believe that it is money well spent.
He should know, He was boss for some time. We appreciate his remarks and his time spent getting SCCA flying. No one will try harder to make the SCCA contribution to society equal to our tax contribution to SCCA.
Nice comment, Pock. Many liked Mr. Lasakow but had legitimate concerns expressed many times before (see the comments in todays Suffolk News challenging some of the fincial assumptions about the SCCA).
Hopefully Mr. Lasakow will continue to support our community and maybe even one day become a taxpayer here, when his thoughts would be even more impressive.
Paul, how many tickets are sold to for the Art D'Wine event and how many are given away? When I say given away that also includes those past and current donars, politicos that control the welfare of the center and members of the SCCA's boards.
If you think sold tickets are an indication of disaster, look on the SCCA website. After substracting for freebies, VIP passes, sponsors, "friends," etc, there is nothing but disaster after disaster. An average church bazaar attracts many more people without the $25000 or so subsidy per show the SCCA gets.
"Sold" tickets may not bring in enough revenue for some famous events, but grossly "undersold" tickets mean simply that there's no interest.
An average movie theater in Suffolk would shame the SCCA, attract more families, and save a subsidy of $450,000 per year (the tax on over 200 average homes per year.)
Since addressed directly, I'll be happy to relay what facts I can.
Art D'Vine was (I cannot speak for the present, but I doubt if anything has changed in six weeks) a no-comps event, as is virtually every fundraiser given by most charitable organizations. The only people that do not pay ticket face value are the staff and volunteers who actually work that night. This is particularly true for relatively high-end events like Art D'Vine.
As to the number of tickets sold, please understand that in performing arts, here or anywhere here else in the world, ticket sales almost never cover the expense of the show. This may come as a surprise, but it's an integral part of the landscape in my professional world. Certainly one wants to sell as many tickets as possible, but there's myriad variables that affect box office draw. Yet even if the show sells out, the presenting organization is generally looking at a net loss. These artists-- like all those performing at places like the SCCA, the Ferguson, the Sandler Center, or the American Theater-- do not make money for the theater. Until capacity gets into the 2000+ seat range, the formula of expenses vs. potential revenue always has a red figure at the bottom of the page.
If not for places like the Center, there would be horrifically few opportunities to see anything but the most major commercial acts. One must ask: if there were no smaller venues, how would any artist or attraction work up to commercial viability? One can't really exist without the other.
Regarding comps in general, very few-- perhaps 3%, but that's a rough guess-- were distributed by the SCCA in the last few years. Comps are part of the currency that such organizations use to trade favors or otherwise directly or indirectly barter. Unless it is part of their membership (should they buy one), neither city officials, board members, donors or anyone else is given free tickets unless they are part of one of the charitable groups that the SCCA helps out. Please note that the 3% (or so) I mentioned does not include the free, or sponsored, tickets to family shows that were distributed to shelters and similar organizations. Nor, for instance, does it include the tickets that the cast and crews of in-house productions were offered by custom. Members at or above a certain level get a small number of tickets per season, but those are paid for with their membership fees. I'm actually using mine tomorrow night for the Al Stewart show.
Oh, and to try to be thorough, very limited comps were occasionally made available to the families of staffers. Although never an entitlement, that's customary as well.
Finally, I would like to gently remind the last anonymous poster that the SCCA, as a multifaceted organization, does far more than present performances with the grant the City most graciously supplies. Dividing the grant amount by the number of ticketed shows is a vastly oversimplified equation.
Again, my intention here is not to editorialize but simply to present facts as I understand them. Nearly all of what I've laid out is applicable to any organization similar to the SCCA. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to be heard.
Oops, one more thing-- movie theaters don't make money at the ticket window either. Most of that goes to the studio or distributor of the picture. The black ink is at the popcorn stand-- thus the rise of the multiplex and the regrettable loss of the neighborhood movie house. But, you are correct that AMC doesn't need subsidy, but only if you don't count tax credits, incentive zones, and other such devices that get the places built in the first place.
What about the poll in today's Suffolk News free handout paper that says only 6% of those responding planned to attend anything at the Cultural Arts Center this season.
We should subsidize what people and their families want to see and not what the SCCA staff can get when it can't get the more popular shows playing throughout Tidewater.
It's almost silly to see the expired executive director of the Cultural Arts complain that movie theaters have tax benefits that aren't fair to the SCCA, an organization that is 100% dependent on charity and buttering up big wigs and social climbers and selling "prestige" to those who desperately thurst for it.
Maybe the SCCA should sell some popcorn in between the free cocktails for its insiders.
Paul Lasakow has the same rights as anyone. And he gives his name.
Pock, you are defending Mr. Lasakow from an attack no one made.
Of course he has a right to be heard, but his thoughts can't arbitrarily overrule the dozens of your readers who have criticized the SCCA and its money "needs" and accountability before.
Thursday was the Shrimp & Beer Feast. Friday we had Art D'Vine at the SCCA. Saturday evening was the Peanut Festival concerts and more beer and oday is De-tox Sunday.
The SNH reported the SCCA raised $50,000(?) from their event. After expenses and reimbursement to artists it was not much of an event. Now if they had piggy backed with A Taste of Suffolk there would have been much better results. Call it "A Taste of D'Wine" so the downtown brothers and sisters can relate to that kind of marketing name.
Regarding past Art D'Vine fundraisers, the artwork auctioned was generously donated by the artists, so no reimbursement to them was necessary. I think that there were exceptions to this, but if so they were rare. I have no reason to believe that has changed. The expenses involve marketing, some ancillary goods & services that one would encounter at any similar event, and food & beverage. These costs are generally covered by the ticket price, with the actual auction proceeds benefiting the SCCA.
The event in the past has been uniformly very successful and is a significant source of revenue directly funding the various educational and outreach activities of the SCCA. Constituting a major effort by volunteers and staff, were it not successful the annual event would have been modified or abandoned.
A little class is always a welcome sign. Thank you SCCA and Art D' Vine. The people who are against any type of sophistication are certainly classless.
Go read your comic books and enjoy your fast food meal.
The above comment is typical but not from one truly sophisticated. Of course those against any type of sophistication may be without class but surely elected fast food and comic books aren't an indication one is not with-it. Nor does association with art centers earn one the label.
And who has benefited from the initial outlays of millions and the half million annual diaper? Not those who can't afford the luxury. And one form of the word "sophistication" is to accept others right to an opinion.
Snobbery in any form with public funds is just not tolerable. The SCCA is a failed project that should come to a silent end, now rather than latter and after many more public dollars spent. The sophisticates that claim "class" are as unaware of what such looks like and how it is earned that they do believe they can buy it with a few dollars and a good story of how they help us all, by spending our money. Always the same story, just a new cast of characters. Time to pull the plug on this turkey and let the curtian fall for the last time, so to say. Now that is CLASS!
Post a Comment