Dolcefino- Round 2

After watching Wayne Dolcefino’s sad regurgitation of the recent art expose over the last few evenings, I initially thought I would lay low and ride it out.  As Bill Davenport of Glasstire aptly said, “it’s futile to reason with fools.”  However, this man is asking for it in a big way.  You simply can’t set yourself up as the arbiter of truth, justice, and (of all things) art without inviting a good blow to the chops.

On a fact-finding mission of my own, I think I uncovered that Dolcefino doesn’t know what castigation means.

Exhibit A:

From: LolaJRS
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 9:23 AM
To: Dolcefino, Wayne <>
Subject: RE: RE:

How is it that you fail to see that your reporting will result in hurting EVERYONE in the arts community, including those very deserving of grant funds?  Fact-finding is one thing, but the way you are framing your argument casts a broad net of castigation over the art community itself.  In a city where the art scene has been fighting desperately for its place next to the more respected art centers, do you pride yourself in dealing this kind of blow?

His reponse:

From: Dolcefino, Wayne <>
Subject: RE: RE:
To: LolaJRS
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 9:25 AM

Im not biting on your nonsense today  noonr castigated the arts community  get over it

The best part is that the man has STILL not learned that he should either not respond to me- or he should proofread his responses.

And it continues.  From me:

I beg your pardon.  It’s not nonsense.

I am not attacking you as a person, and I never have- unlike a few you like to highlight in your segment.  It’s easier to do that to add fuel to your fires than to engage in reasonable discourse about your report and its affects, isn’t it?

You are single handedly trying to take down the one institution who has been there to support the emerging artists of our community.  No one argues that some things (and funds) could be better managed. 

I am not speaking as someone who has received grant funds- because up to this point, I have never personally seen a penny of it.  I am speaking as someone who is passionate about Houston’s arts and who is desperately trying to fight the notion in our own city that we have nothing culturally worthwhile to offer.  When the art aficionados from arts capitals see your reporting about arts and our city, the nail is in the metaphorical coffin: We will continue to be seen as a community incapable of appreciating art. 

You have less successfully rallied the public to seek oversight in the allocation of funds than you have rallied the public to moan about public funding for art in the first place. 

And him:

 You have a right to your opinion, even if it is dead wrong. 

And moi: 

This is one point on which we agree, Mr. Dolcefino. 

 The difference is that I do not go on television and claim that my personal opinion is fact or news.


~ by ladamesansregrets on November 26, 2008.

3 Responses to “Dolcefino- Round 2”

  1. Perhaps its time to rally the troops and show the world that Houston is in fact, an art destination.

  2. Please pardon my language on this but Mr. Dolcefino has unfortunately shown his a$$ on this one. Who is he to decide what is and what is not worthy of funding ( or what is and what is not art ). There are too many in this city that seem to think that art should be the pretty picture that they buy to go with their decor and he is playing up to them. He is correct that we do have a right to our opinion but as a member of the media he does seem to forget that his opinion is not necessarily a fact.

  3. It’s one of Houston’s ugliest truths: Dolcefino draws big ratings because people (1) think he does good by exposing “bad” and (2) he is a sensationalist. For any casual viewer, Dolcefino is a champion of the public. For anyone who is part of an organization or project that Dolcefino has chosen to “investigate” it’s a different story.

    I was part of a non-profit that he decided was not using donated money correctly. He spent months digging through our books, interviewing donors and beneficiaries. He couldn’t find a single fact to support his belief (when he thinks something is true he states it as fact, regardless of evidence). He did find two things that, if stated without clarification, would look bad. So he made a three-part segment based upon the two things without ever referencing the clarifications that would have shown the truth. His smear damaged the non-profit (this was 5 years ago and donors still ask about it).

    He should be investigated – and it wouldn’t even take someone as rotten as he is to show what a charlatan he is. Best to your project. You’ll need it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: