JP Reuer

Listen to the interview on Apple, Spotify, or your listening platform of choice. Captioned interviews are available on YouTube.

The views and opinions expressed by speakers and presenters in connection with Art Restart are their own, and not an endorsement by the Thomas S. Kenan Institute for the Arts and the UNC School of the Arts. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

For the last two decades, architect and educator JP Reuer has been exploring how artists can become vital, integrated members of their communities rather than isolated figures working on the fringes of society. That ethos now fuels his most ambitious project to date: Small School, a Raleigh-based arts organization that reimagines advanced arts education as more accessible, collaborative and deeply embedded in local culture.

Through Small School, JP has rejected the traditional MFA model in favor of a nimbler, community-driven approach. The organization brings renowned visiting artists to the Triangle area to engage with local artists through workshops, public events and one-on-one studio visits, an exchange that empowers both emerging and established artists while fostering a richer creative ecosystem.

In this episode, JP traces his journey from academia to founding Small School, sharing what he’s learned about the evolving role of artists in society. He discusses the power of bringing artists out of ivory towers and into the heart of their communities and why rethinking arts education is essential to supporting a more inclusive and dynamic creative landscape.

Pier Carlo Talenti: Tell me about how the idea for the Small School started to coalesce. What needs were you hoping to address with this idea of yours?

JP Reuer: The beginning is an accidental step into academia a little over 20 years ago when I started teaching for Virginia Commonwealth University School of the Arts in Qatar. I was able to run a fairly large conference there, and through that work we could address social and environmental topics that previously had not been addressed.

I really got a bug for working with artists and designers on issues that I thought were important and was lucky to work with really talented folks, so project-based initiatives became part of something I was interested in.

Pier Carlo: You said, “Issues that had not been explored through this kind of program before.” Can you give me an example?

JP: Well, for instance, we would take students out with visiting artists and designers during the conference to migrant housing, conditions, situations. Some of the students had never seen that. Those are part of a kind of human-rights concern in that area that we tried to initiate conversations about in very respectful ways. And we would highlight some of the construction practices around sustainability. 

Through that work, through that conference, I was invited by the Queen, essentially, to consult on a major design project. What that taught me was that if you want to talk about important topics that affect all of us and do it in a way that feels respectful and inviting, opportunities follow or might follow.

Previously I wasn’t familiar with academia that operated like that. I started to feel like maybe there’s a place for me here. I never thought I would be in academia. Both my parents were academics, and I swore I would never do that. Then I was invited to apply for a position on the West Coast to start a new MFA in Applied Craft and Design, which was similarly public-engagement-focused and learning by making, learning by doing. 

Through that MFA experience and co-authoring a couple of other MFA programs while out there, I thought there might be a way to provide the kind of learning that the students there were getting in a way that was more direct and much more affordable. At the same time, I saw the beginning of the closing of many art schools. We’ve had so many that have closed over the last 10 years, it’s really remarkable. It’s sad. 

Another component of the conditions or the context in which I started thinking about starting a new thing was some of the predictability of the student work in MFA programs: very good, really thoughtful, but a little bit predictable and not showing, I think, the full range of expression that you have from within our society at large. So I thought it might be interesting to try to find ways to include people that might not otherwise go the route of an MFA. 

When I started talking with some folks in Portland, OR, where I was, about doing something independent, one of my colleagues said, “Oh, that sounds great. Why don’t you do it?” And I thought, “Oh, no. He’s called my bluff!” I took that seriously. That was 2012, ’13, maybe. I’ve been working on it since then. We launched a couple of years ago. I know that there are many different issues around how to start something like this and why, but that’s sort of how it all began.

Pier Carlo: How far along are you?

JP: Well, we’ve come a long way, but we’re still at, I think, a stage of infancy. Part of that has to do with this back and forth that I think is common in any new endeavor where you have to develop enough of a kind of prototype so that you can describe a model. Then you have to test it and testing something like this is not easily doable in the abstract. You have to run it out there in real life. Through that process, you get a lot of feedback, and you learn what is resonating, what isn’t and what is either too administratively overwhelming or not relevant enough to enough people. 

Initially, the idea was that we would launch something like an MFA or something very similar in a building with facilities, etc.

Pier Carlo: In downtown Raleigh, right?

JP: In downtown Raleigh, yeah. The positive thing about starting like that was that the vision seemed compelling to some people that are influential, and they helped in making introductions to other people that could help facilitate the development. We were getting some traction. I had met with all of the city council folks in Raleigh about the project, and they were all enthusiastic. I felt pretty confident that they would provide support, in terms of starter space and an incubation period. 

Then COVID hit, and all that went away. That was really disappointing, but it made us think about the model. “How can we continue to move forward in this context?” And we let go of the real-estate piece. That was an incredible relief. First you go through this period of disappointment and sense of failure. “It didn’t work.” But then, “Wait a second, do we actually need a building? I mean, we’ve been trying to raise $10 or 12 million, and I don’t know that we can. But we can probably get started with programming, and through that programming and small projects, start to learn and build a community and build awareness.”

So that’s what happened. It took maybe two years to move from the disappointment to the actual first event, but it was important that that happened because I think that had I continued with the original model, nothing would’ve really come to fruition.

Pier Carlo: So is the plan still, you think, in the future to offer a degree program?

JP: Not now. If that happened, I think that would be such a different model than what we’re looking at now, partially because there’s an issue of scale. When you try to launch an accredited degree program, the administrative costs become significant, and that means that you have to have a larger tuition-paying student body to offset the costs. More significantly, in terms of the amount of financial support from grants, foundations and other awards, etc., it just seems pretty ambitious for where we are.

Plus, and maybe as important or more important, the vast majority of working artists did not go to art school. The vast majority of folks who go to art school do not become working artists. That’s not to say anything critical about art school; it’s just that there are different paths that most people take. And so we’re trying to step into a space that formal academic art schools don’t always or are not always able to and be much more involved with local communities first, as opposed to curricular structures or academic bureaucracy.

Pier Carlo: You’re offering your first fellowships, is that correct?

JP: That’s the goal. The fundraising exhibition that you saw this weekend was the first fundraising event, and we’re getting ready to start a crowdfunding campaign. Depending on how successful those are, we will launch a fellowship in the fall. There is absolutely no shortage of interest on the artist side — that part we are confident in — but we need to raise money.

Pier Carlo: You yourself clearly went to art school and trained as an architect, and you have taught in at least two major programs. But like you said, artists don’t need to go to art school to be artists. So how are you hoping the model that you’re envisioning might reinvent the advanced art-education system? What do you think artists need, without going into debt to go to art school?

JP: Well, I think that the proliferation of MFAs was a good thing, in terms of providing opportunities for people to learn through artmaking and through art. It was unrealistic, in terms of suggesting that all the folks that went and got MFAs would be able to survive as working artists or in many cases get jobs teaching art. I think that a common disappointment for MFA grads is realizing that, “Wow, I’m not really going to be able to get a teaching gig.” For a long time, that was the model for many artists: “I’m going to teach. That will be my income, and then I can make art that doesn’t rely on producing income.”

With both Small School and the program I ran in Portland, I told students that this is not a program that is designed for you to become an art academic. There is nothing wrong with that, but it’s just unrealistic for many people. The market is flooded with folks that are very, very good at that.

Pier Carlo: Let me ask you then, especially thinking back on your Portland days, what was it about your program that made it not geared for artists who were hoping to become academics?

JP: We had something called a practicum. The idea was basically that the artists would do something similar to an internship, some applied project with a community or a business or a civic organization that combined their academic research with their skills in making work. The idea was to evolve and explore ways for artists to become more common members of society, just like you may meet someone at some social event and they’re an engineer or a nurse or whatever kind of recognizable job and you don’t other them. We were trying to find a way for artists to be more common, meaning you wouldn’t necessarily question or put them in a box that they’re this cliched version of an artist or someone about whom you worry, “Oh, how are you going to make a living?” That was the ambition, and we still have that ambition here.

Pier Carlo: Tell me about what kind of artists that kind of ethic or way of thinking creates, being part of the community as opposed to being in an ivory or marble tower. 

JP: Well, I think number one, your audience or others in general are more considered in your practice and often included. We were not a social practice program, but there were many folks that were interested in social practice, and there was that influence.

That could mean that even the conception of a project would be initiated through some kind of participation with others. Or the fabrication of it. There’s a range of ways that other people can be involved. The point really is that many people don’t feel comfortable or invited or included in art settings, whether it’s a gallery or a museum or an artist talk.

Pier Carlo: That’s true for artists and non-artists alike, right?

JP: Yes. We were trying to overcome that obstacle and that tradition.

Pier Carlo: You talked about testing ideas. One thing you learned, for instance, is that real estate, which can sink so many organizations, is not your goal. What else have you tested?

JP: I think that we test what gets people excited about what we’re doing. For me, one initial thought at the very beginning was that we would have this fairly robust and intense lecture/performance series downtown —this was all before COVID and before George Floyd and significant events that have impacted downtown — that we would have this energy that came from both an urban setting of discussions and the idea of the public intellectual. That’s ambitious anywhere, but I think in a smaller city, it was too ambitious. And so we’ve scaled back on the frequency, partially because there isn’t a large-enough population, and just in terms of scheduling, there are other things going on that not everyone can attend.

I think we’re in a good spot right now, where we’re meeting at most twice a month, but we’re moving more towards once a month, and we’re getting better participation because of that.

The biggest happy surprise has been the studio visits where the visiting artist spends an hour or so with a local artist in their studio. It made sense immediately after I recognized it — but I didn’t foresee it — that it’s easier to talk to a stranger. When a visiting artist comes in, the local artists can have sometimes a more candid conversation or reveal some aspects of their practice or what they’re exploring in ways that they wouldn’t otherwise. 

It’s common for artists, I think, to try to form critique groups with their peers, which are great, but they tend to peter out after a short time, just because it’s hard to keep the structure going. And if you know that you’re going to run into someone in the coffee shop or the grocery store, maybe you hold back, or maybe you don’t share quite as freely. So the studio visits have been a great staple of the visiting artists’ itinerary in their program here.

We’ve done a lot of workshops. We’re doing more project-based work. We had one with Alan Sonfist, who is a land-art pioneer. We did a project here with the North Carolina Forestry Service that we exhibited at CAM Raleigh, and then it was exhibited at Art Basel Miami. And next month we have Chip Thomas, who’s an artist who’s been working with the Navajo for 30 years.

Pier Carlo: Yeah, a past guest here.

JP: Oh, right. That’s right. You know Chip. Well, yeah. So hopefully, we’ll be able to get together with Chip when he is here next month. I’m talking with him later today. He’ll be here for a residency and doing a public artwork.

Pier Carlo: Since you first got the idea for Small School in 2012 or 2013, what are you proudest of?

JP: Primarily it’s the response and acknowledgement from folks that I’ve worked with, whether they’re students or peers or colleagues, in terms of just finding the time and the experience meaningful and valuable. I get a big kick out of working hard with people and experimenting.

Often it’s common for an artist visiting, especially if there’s someone I haven’t worked with before, to not really know what Small School is and to ask a few questions and then realize that we are developing what it is. It’s not a stable model yet. Artists are really comfortable working with the unknown.

Pier Carlo: Which architects, I imagine, are not.

JP: Well, I mean, maybe initially it’s fine, but when it comes time to produce something that you have to build and be paid for, it’s more difficult.

Pier Carlo: You’ve worked with a lot of really amazing visiting artists. What are you hearing from them about your vision for Small School?

JP: In general, they love it. I don’t think you would’ve seen the work that we had on display this weekend from really wonderful artists if they didn’t feel supportive of what we’re trying to do.

Pier Carlo: Right, because you were sharing the proceeds from that sale with them.

JP: Correct.

Pier Carlo: That’s really wonderful. What do you wish you could go back to 2013 and whisper in your ear about this project?

JP: The real answer is that I don’t know that I could have done it any differently. The things that I learned the hard way or that took a long time had to be learned that way. But if there was some magic involved, I think it would be getting through the real-estate piece more quickly. I think it would be letting go of the MFA as the model more quickly. Yeah, those are the two major ones.

Pier Carlo: Do you still have time as an architect to make your own work?

JP: Well, I have to. [He laughs.]  And I enjoy that. But it’s just a lot right now. 

But, I mean, you know this. You meet some of the artists around here, and you know that they’re making some really good work and that they’re very bright and talented and community-oriented and civic-minded. I just feel like — and this is how I felt when I came back to Raleigh — that Raleigh was ready, that the Triangle was ready for a leap, in terms of artistic voice and shaping of our culture.

Historically, we’re a fairly conservative area, but I just felt like the growth and the stability that we’ve had would allow for something like Small School. I’m hopeful that we are able to move forward, and if not, then I’ll probably still find ways in a different capacity to do the same things. I think of artists as people who care about our planet and the people on it through their artmaking, and I want to support that effort.

Pier Carlo: I have to say, just the program of bringing established artists into medium-to-small cities’ artist studios feels kind of like a no-brainer. It’s a fantastic idea. It feels like every mid-sized town should have such a program because it’s not that expensive and it can be really transformative for an artist.

JP: I think so. I think we’ve all had some form of this experience, where you sit at a table with someone who might have been an idol or a hero or someone that you know is incredibly accomplished, and though it’s not rational, it can validate you. You can feel like, “I’m at the table too. And guess what? I’ve had a conversation with this person, and I held my own.” That’s a great benefit to someone who’s emerging or hasn’t had the same kind of opportunity or success.

Conversely, one thing that we do is that we’re really thoughtful about the experience for the visiting artist. We try to make that a very engaging experience. Without exception, I think they all, especially the ones that have never been here, return to where they’re from and think, “Wow, Raleigh and the Triangle, there is something happening there.”

I had one artist who after a few studio visits said, “What is going on here?” I said, “What do you mean?” He said, “I mean, what do you call what’s happening here?” And fortunately, I was with another artist, and we both answered, “Small School,” in unison. This fellow had been in San Francisco for many years and had been there at the time of its evolution in terms of experimental artworks, and he felt a similar kind of vibe.