news and networking
Leader Profiles
Stephanie Pereira
Research Associate
Chicago Arts Partnerships in Education (CAPE)
Chicago, Illinois
Stephanie, you always seem to be working on a new project, or even multiple projects at the same time. Is there anything you've got on the front burner that you're especially excited about?
I am currently on a short-list for a Fulbright Scholarship to do an independent study in London with the Head of Tate Modern’s Dept of Education and Interpretation. My proposal is to work with TM staff on an initiative to develop a new model for the role of the public in the museum. I will document our process, as well as study the role of the arts in a country where arts and culture are embedded in public policy. The hope is to get some new experience, develop a great project, and bring back some new working models to the U.S.
How symbolic it would be if you actually received public funding to conduct your study. Your work and various projects seem to revolve around research and public art. Do you have a specific long-term career goal in mind as you choose these projects?
I am working towards a career in museum public programming. While my full-time position at CAPE provides me with the rich opportunity to work in an environment that daily pushes the boundaries of arts education, I work outside of my office to learn more about thematic program design, working with diverse and voluntary publics, and working with art and artists. I do what I can to cover those bases mostly through volunteer work, and paid work when I can. Strategically speaking, I am always trying to flesh out my resume and make myself a viable candidate for the professional position I desire. However, a lot of what I do is simply to get to know the arts scene in Chicago better, build my network and get a better understanding of art-making and it’s contexts.
Is this the vision behind your work with the group you co-founded called the Little Arts Society?
IDefinitely, I think everything I do is connected to this theme. It is like I am working on a research project that will never end. When I started Little Arts Society I was experimenting with ideas related to museum programs developed from the outside-in (rather than the inside-out). Little Arts represented a beginning in this line of thought. The way Little Arts works is one or more of us identifies exhibitions we are interested in seeing, we then use materials culled from the museum and elsewhere to design our own museum programs. For the most part, our programs represent rich public discussions and in some cases we have produced alternative guides or maps to exhibitions.
The power of technology is transforming the way we create and enjoy art. Is this something you personally embrace in your approach to public art, or do see it perhaps as a potential for watering down or filtering the experience in the traditional sense?
What was it that Spiderman's uncle says? "With great power comes great responsibility." I think that we are still going through some growing pains with new technologies, but once we (artists and arts administrators) figure it out, technology can be great a great tool for engaging publics. A concern of mine comes from overusing technology or using it inappropriately. This is like anything else, the actual experience could become over-mediated. I think it is important that we figure out what these new tools are for and what we really want to do with them before we just start using them just because we can.
The video show that I recently co-curated for the façade of Hyde Park Art Center's new facility exemplifies the possibilities and pitfalls of using new technologies in art. Video work can be projected onto the new building's 80'x10' glass façade and run facing the street from 3pm-10pm each day. This new technology presents an opportunity for an arts space to exist as a dynamic presence in the community it inhabits. This of course can be read as a gift or a curse for pedestrians encountering it, depending on what one thinks of the art on view. As curators for a public facade, the public was our number one concern, even before really loving a piece, or judging its appropriateness for the theme. In fact, there were a number of pieces we loved that we didn't choose because we felt that they didn't belong on a public façade for anyone to have to see.
Since the public in proximity to HPAC has no choice but to encounter the exhibition, we decided to include numerous opportunities for public response to the show. We got really excited about using technology to fill out the main body of the work and invite any happenstance audiences in. Among other programs we have a blog that an artist or curator will host each week. Posts might be anything from a new art piece, to a discussion about their work, to replies to feedback on the show. For example, we invited Richard Fox, whose piece in our show is culled from online public forums, to create a series of new poems using public responses to the exhibition collected via an email account and on-site comment box. Richard will then post these poems on the blog during his week as host.
If this was not a show about public engagement, we wouldn't have structured the programs for this exhibition around public voice. If Richard Fox didn’t write poems using public texts found online, we wouldn’t have asked him to do so for us. This is a key point - the use of technology needs to make sense within a given curatorial format, and it needs to make sense alongside the art included in a show.
So you can see that I do indeed see a lot of opportunities for meaningfully engaging publics in art by utilizing technology.
