Introduction

Currently, eReaders such as Amazon’s Kindle and Barnes and Nobles’ Nook are very popular devices on which users are able to read digital versions of books and periodicals. In one form or another, these devices allow users to “highlight” and save passages in their digital books. However, this is generally as far as the service goes. The highlights then exist only on these devices.

Bibliofile is a concept for a website that allows its users to synchronize and store all highlights and notes they make while reading eBooks. Users can then visit the Bibliofile website wherein they can interact with their highlights and notes: browse, delete, categorize, share, review, and even explore connections between their highlights.

Personas

Most of the uses and therefore personas and goals of the Bibliofile product are academic. Certainly, the product could be used and enjoyed as a supplement to recreational reading. However, I feel that, in order to really push the prototype and explore what it could really offer, the project needs to have more academically-oriented personas and goals.

Age: 25
Occupation: Graduate Student
Income Level: $10,000
Education Level: Bachelors

Personal Background Information:

Anna has a bachelors in political science and is now working on her masters studying law. She is constantly reading books and peer-reviewed journals. She is often taking notes of her reading for a specific research paper deadline. But, she also takes note of poignant passages with the thought that it will be useful at some point or another in her education or career.

Reason for Using the Product:

School dominates Anna’s life. If she is not in the classroom, she is writing papers and reading. Her main use of the product is central for these tasks. She uses the product to organize her notes, review for tests, and write research papers.

Age: 38
Occupation: Lecturer/Blogger/Consultant on all things Marketing
Income Level: $95,000
Education Level: Bachelors

Personal Background Information:

Lisa eats, breathes, and sleeps marketing. Her lifestyle is nomadic. She is almost always travelling for a meeting or to speak at a conference. She is just as active online, tweeting, positing, commenting on the topic of marketing.

Reason for Using the Product:

Lisa is constantly pushing marketing information to people. Whether it is in the form of a blog post, a conference lecture, or a presentation to a client. She must always keep abreast of the latest trends in marketing and, in turn, keep her output equally fresh. Lisa uses the product to do these tasks.

Age: 55
Occupation: Professor of Architecture
Income Level: $75,000
Education Level: Masters

Personal Background Information:

Stephen loves to talk architecture and design. He enjoyed his time working in the field of architecture but was frequently frustrated by a lack of discussion around the theoretical and conceptual. This drew him back into academia as a professor. He has grown to constantly seeing things in terms of the topics he is covering in his classes. As Stephen gets older, he is becoming fonder of the idea of writing a book.

Reason for Using the Product:

Stephen’s main use for the product revolves around his job. He has found it helpful in developing course curriculum, specifically readings and long-answer tests. But, he also enjoys using it for his own personal reading and projects—specifically the book he has always wanted to write.

Before the product was introduced to Stephen, he was very reluctant to invest in an eReading device and certainly did not like to read electronic documents on a screen. He enjoys books as much as he does reading. He even finds meaning in how books are stored.

Paper Prototype

After having spent a decent amount of time sketching, I arrived at a few general models which were just complete enough to throw at a few testers. So, the natural choice was a series of paper prototypes constructed around the goals of my personas.

My findings were simultaneously encouraging and humbling. The email model for general navigation and curation seemed to work very well. I had a tester who was not a Gmail user, but had no trouble utilizing my very Gmail-eque model. However, the visual network model for comparing and exploring highlights did not test tremendously well.

I should rephrase that slightly. The actual visual network model was not too bad. After users played with it a little, they understood and liked it. However, getting them to this area was probably the task most fraught with confusion. The main culprit would be the unfamiliar pattern of selected data (in this case, a checkboxed highlight) remaining selected and present despite committing other parallel tasks (in this case, searching for another highlight).

There were, of course, plenty of other smaller findings that are invaluable, but the above seem to be the general themes.

Below are three PDFs documenting the three goals as completed with the paper prototype.

Digital Prototype

The first iteration of the digital prototype was almost identical in layout and behavior to the paper prototype. Subsequent iterations mainly wrestled a lot with the aforementioned issue of how chosen data follows a user through multiple queries for other information while remaining quickly accessible. Similarly, the mode(s) of connecting data and browsing data via alternative visualizations were also given much attention between iterations.

Below are links to each iteration of the digital prototype with the exception of the earliest.

After having spent a decent amount of time sketching, I arrived at a few general models which were just complete enough to throw at a few testers. So, the natural choice was a series of paper prototypes constructed around the goals of my personas.

My findings were simultaneously encouraging and humbling. The email model for general navigation and curation seemed to work very well. I had a tester who was not a Gmail user, but had no trouble utilizing my very Gmail-eque model. However, the visual network model for comparing and exploring highlights did not test tremendously well.

I should rephrase that slightly. The actual visual network model was not too bad. After users played with it a little, they understood and liked it. However, getting them to this area was probably the task most fraught with confusion. The main culprit would be the unfamiliar pattern of selected data (in this case, a checkboxed highlight) remaining selected and present despite committing other parallel tasks (in this case, searching for another highlight).

There were, of course, plenty of other smaller findings that are invaluable, but the above seem to be the general themes.

Paper Prototype Documentation

Below are three PDFs documenting the three goals as completed with the paper prototype.

Bibliofile Project Posts

Introduction
Personas
Initial Sketching
Paper Prototyping

My initial sketches quickly lead me in the direction of two models of navigation. The more prevalent model being that of the web-based email model. I view this as the model through which the user can view, organize, tag, and quickly find highlights of which they are already aware. The second model borrows heavily from the node-surfing navigation of Thinkmap’s Visual Thesaurus. I view this model as the most effective approach to viewing connections between highlights and exploring/discovering new highlights from the public database.

Here are a few of the sketches from this phase:

Grappling with overall interface layout

Jotting down user goals / exploring node-based navigation

Exploring details of the email-style interface

Understanding the layout of an expanded entry

Wrestling with the visual node-surfing model

Bibliofile Project Posts

Introduction
Personas
Initial Sketching
Paper Prototyping

Description

Help Inc. is a non-profit organization in western Oklahoma. It is run entirely by volunteers and donations, their main focus is supplying a place in which those in need can obtain food. However, they also provide for specific needs on a case-by-case basis. This might be in the form of pharmaceuticals, gasoline for transportation, or a ride to the doctor’s office–it all depends on the need.

As a designer my goal was to emphasize the friendly, helpful aspect of Help Inc. and not dwell on the need. For one, the needs address take many forms. Secondly, dwelling on needs might point out and alienate those in need. Another concern I had in mind in designing the identity was Help Inc.’s user of volunteers and meeting new people. This is one of the big motivations behind the name tag design.

Most of the uses and therefore personas and goals of the Bibliofile product are academic. Certainly, the product could be used and enjoyed as a supplement to recreational reading. However, I feel that, in order to really push the prototype and explore what it could really offer, the project needs to have more academically-oriented personas and goals.

Without further ado, the personas…

Age: 25
Occupation: Graduate Student
Income Level: $10,000
Education Level: Bachelors

Personal Background Information:

Anna has a bachelors in political science and is now working on her masters studying law. She is constantly reading books and peer-reviewed journals. She is often taking notes of her reading for a specific research paper deadline. But, she also takes note of poignant passages with the thought that it will be useful at some point or another in her education or career.

Reason for Using the Product:

School dominates Anna’s life. If she is not in the classroom, she is writing papers and reading. Her main use of the product is central for these tasks. She uses the product to organize her notes, review for tests, and write research papers.

Age: 38
Occupation: Lecturer/Blogger/Consultant on all things Marketing
Income Level: $95,000
Education Level: Bachelors

Personal Background Information:

Lisa eats, breathes, and sleeps marketing. Her lifestyle is nomadic. She is almost always travelling for a meeting or to speak at a conference. She is just as active online, tweeting, positing, commenting on the topic of marketing.

Reason for Using the Product:

Lisa is constantly pushing marketing information to people. Whether it is in the form of a blog post, a conference lecture, or a presentation to a client. She must always keep abreast of the latest trends in marketing and, in turn, keep her output equally fresh. Lisa uses the product to do these tasks.

Age: 55
Occupation: Professor of Architecture
Income Level: $75,000
Education Level: Masters

Personal Background Information:

Stephen loves to talk architecture and design. He enjoyed his time working in the field of architecture but was frequently frustrated by a lack of discussion around the theoretical and conceptual. This drew him back into academia as a professor. He has grown to constantly seeing things in terms of the topics he is covering in his classes. As Stephen gets older, he is becoming fonder of the idea of writing a book.

Reason for Using the Product:

Stephen’s main use for the product revolves around his job. He has found it helpful in developing course curriculum, specifically readings and long-answer tests. But, he also enjoys using it for his own personal reading and projects—specifically the book he has always wanted to write.

Before the product was introduced to Stephen, he was very reluctant to invest in an eReading device and certainly did not like to read electronic documents on a screen. He enjoys books as much as he does reading. He even finds meaning in how books are stored.

Bibliofile Project Posts

Introduction
Personas
Initial Sketching
Paper Prototyping

The concept is an online repository for notes, highlights, and any such user-generated content created in regards to reading electronic documents—-specifically eBooks. This would allow users to retain, organize, synthesize, and share the information they consume while reading eBooks.

The user group on which I am currently focusing is generally academic, although I believe such a concept could find plenty of uses beyond the academy.

The main focus of the concept is the online repository and how users will interact with information therein. Being able to “slice” and navigate information on various criteria such as date, keywords, tags, categories, author, book, and so on is the core intention of the concept. Users should be able to curate user-generated data without the source-material, although the source material should never be far away as, television news has taught us by negative example (shameless jab), context is everything. Lastly, I want to explore the idea of synthesizing clippings, so the user can make connections amidst seemingly disparate pieces of information in their personal database as well as the global database.

I want to explore the idea of synthesizing clippings, so the user can make connections amidst seemingly disparate pieces of information in their personal database as well as the global database.

It is likely that this system will in-turn affect how users interact with eReader software. So, ultimately, the concept is actually an ecosystem of user-generated data that exists and is manipulated across various devices. However, I want to ensure that the dominant use of eReader devices and software is reading. If anything note-taking is a process that could stand streamlining on current eReading devices.

Although my materials/content will remain relatively generic, the paradigm I am approaching the project from is that of Amazon’s eReader ecosystem. Currently, Amazon’s kindle website is a baby step in the direction I want to go with this project.

Last but very important, I had the very fortunate opportunity of hearing Steve Portigal present the Reading Ahead project when he visited SCAD last year. The project was executed by Steve and a group of folks at Portigal Consulting. Basically, they researched users on the topic of reading and books in regards to the eBook era. That, in and of itself is awesome, but they also did an excellent job of logging their process and findings on the Portigal blog. This post and its narrated slideshow has been particularly useful. I very much appreciate the concern with how the reading experience extends beyond actually looking at and interpreting words.

Bibliofile Project Posts

Introduction
Personas
Initial Sketching
Paper Prototyping

Description

One of the main projects I worked on while at Kodak was their new line of digital picture frames.  The notable improvements for this series of frames can be seen in a GUI which takes advantage of an increased bit depth, aesthetic and behaviors which are more consistent with Kodak’s brand language and current family of digital devices, a simplified remote control which attaches to the back of the frame via magnets, new slideshow modes, and more transparent, instructive workflows for copying and deleting photos–an area which ethnography showed previous models caused many users to struggle.

The frames were officially released in the fourth quarter of 2010 under the EasyShare series and are available at retail stores such as Best Buy and Wal-Mart.  Models include D1025, P850, and P750.

Screenshots

Prototyping

A number of the behaviors of the frame had to be prototyped and tested.  We created prototypes in Flash/ActionScript binding keys to Apple’s remote (with Twisted Melon’s Mira) simulate the frame’s remote.  These prototypes were also useful when communicating behavior specifications to the manufacturer.  The swf below was a simple prototype to determine behaviors surrounding accessing and scrolling through the main menu.

Space = pause | L/R Keys = Left/Right

Slideshows

One of my responsibilities was designing new slideshow modes for the frame.  I made the prototypes in Flash/ActionScript for both testing as well as communicating the behavior to the manufacturer.  Below are one of these prototype modes.

“Thanks for the lesson in manners.”
–Nestlé Spokesperson, Nestlé’s Facebook Fan Page

The goal of this document is to display a brand’s social media strategy in practice as seen in one really dreadful occurrence.  The negative example observed is couched in commentary showing why certain choices on behalf of the company were so poor but also giving a glimpse of something better so it’s clear what is missing.

The brand of concern is Nestlé.  Based out of Switzerland, Nestlé is almost 150 years old and is currently “the world’s leading nutrition, health and wellness company.”  In other words, they make a lot of food products.  There are many brands that fall under the Nestlé umbrella, including Lean Cuisine, Nescafé, PowerBar, Purina, and Butterfinger.

Nestlé, like any large corporation that is dealing with food products, is no stranger to crises such as a confirmed e. coli outbreak in some of their products[1] and alleged chemical poisoning in their milk products in China[2].  These were situations whose main offense was broadcast to the public through government agencies and traditional news media.  Dogmatic approaches to PR can do effective damage control in these situations.  However, a recent challenge from Greenpeace seemed to throw Nestlé into unfamiliar territory.

These were situations whose main offense was broadcast to the public through government agencies and traditional news media.  Dogmatic approaches to PR can do effective damage control in these situations.

“…Nestlé struggled to contain a barrage of criticism from angry consumers on Twitter and its official Facebook page last week. The attacks followed claims in a Greenpeace viral that Nestlé is continuing to source palm oil from Sinar Mas, an Indonesian firm accused of illegal deforestation of rainforests. After a Nestlé employee responded on its Facebook page, the firm was chastised for its ‘arrogant’ approach.”[3]

The ‘Greenpeace viral’ mentioned in the above article is a short video that shows an office worker attempting to enjoy a Nestlé Kit-Kat bar only to find that he has instead bitten into an orangutan finger.  The message being conveyed is that supporting Nestlé is to support the destruction of the orangutan’s natural habitat.

Nestlé’s response only garnered more negativity.  Consider one of the early responses from Nestlé’s Facebook page moderator:  “We welcome your comments, but please don’t post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic — they will be deleted.”  The ‘conversation’ escalated, and the Nestlé representative became outright snarky.  An article in AdAge elaborates.

“[A Facebook user] offered that he’s ‘not sure you’re going to win friends in the social media space with this sort of dogmatic approach. I understand that you’re on your back-foot due to various issues not excluding palm oil but social media is about embracing your market, engaging and having a conversation rather than preaching!’ The Nestlé moderator’s response: ‘Thanks for the lesson in manners. Consider yourself embraced. But it’s our page, we set the rules, it was ever thus.’”[4]

The Nestle moderator’s response: ‘Thanks for the lesson in manners. Consider yourself embraced. But it’s our page, we set the rules, it was ever thus.

Beyond the removal of certain posts on the Facebook page, Nestlé also approached YouTube, requesting the offending video be removed on account of it’s misuse of a logo—the phrase “KitKat” was altered to read “Killer”.  The video was not removed and, in hindsight, it was probably in Nestlé’s best interest, as it likely would have only fanned the fire of negative feedback.  Furthermore, Internet censorship, as documented again and again by the Open Network Initiative[5], is a practice in futility—especially in the face of passionate people.

The outcry was enough that Nestlé did eventually reconsider and change their supplier of palm oil.  However, this was not until a month later and much of the damage had already been done.  Posts from users on the Nestlé Facebook page claimed to boycott not only on the grounds of their questionable environmental practices but also on account of Nestlé’s uncaring response to the situation.[6]

In his book Designing for the Social Web, Joshua Porter explains that a company has basically three options when responding to negative feedback: listen, ignore, or disagree.  Porter claims that ignorance leads to a lack of innovation and that disagreement is the option that should be chosen by those not wishing to succeed at all.[7] It could be argued Nestlé has discovered a fourth option—antagonization—which is apparently the option for brands desiring to be hated and boycotted.

In taking this stance, Nestlé also postured their brand as an entity that is outside the sphere of people—be they customers or not.  Whereas the environmental concerns that initially sparked the debacle were casting Nestlé in an inhumane role, Nestlé gladly reiterated it with their arrogant response.  Evidence for or against the company in regards to how they obtain palm oil was not even necessary at this point.

“…[Customers] can use their reviews and complaints to have a big impact on a company’s reputation and business.  Public relations has to take on a new meaning.  It can no longer be about the press and publicity, which just separate companies from the public they are supposed to serve.  Public relations must be about a new relationship with the public, with the public in charge.”[8]

Making the choice to listen to feedback and engage with customers in authentic conversation means “[p]eople will start to recognize that you actually care”  and a company will be much healthier in the long run[9].  Brian Solis adds that “[t]he art of conversation is mastered through hearing and listening…experience the nature, dynamic, ambience, and emotion of the dialogue in order to sincerely and intelligently empathize and converse as a peer.”[10] This approach to engaging people places the brand on the same level as people.  This is a tremendous opportunity to humanize a brand.

Solis explains the sequence of authentic conversation from the perspective of a brand representative: “I hear you.  I’m listening to you.  I understand.  Action. [emphasis added]”[11] In order to ratify all the engagement that takes place in a conversation, action must be taken.  But, action does not necessarily equate to an immediate submission to feedback—perhaps especially when the feedback is deeply passionate and severe.  Furthermore, even if the desired action amongst the feedback is one that a company is interested in adopting, the said action might still require a lot of cogs in the machine to turn before anything can be done.  This is perhaps a point of understanding that could be held toward Nestlé’s situation—they were being challenged to change a business practice that likely would require time and deliberation.

In order to ratify all the engagement that takes place in a conversation, action must be taken.  But, action does not necessarily equate to an immediate submission to feedback, perhaps especially when the feedback is deeply passionate and severe.

So what might ‘action’ have meant for Nestlé in their sticky predicament?  It is likely there was some level of internal conversation occurring at Nestlé in regards to the matter.  This could perhaps count as action—at least enough to address the outcry on the Facebook page.  Something to the tune of: “The feedback we have been receiving lately has been passionate and challenging.  We here at Nestlé have begun discussing how to begin taking action on your feedback.  We are listening and want to continue this conversation.”  This could perhaps be one of the most crucial (but often overlooked) moments for a company to have employees that grasp the brand’s tone-of-voice.

“[The goal is to train employees] to be able to recognize when a piece of writing is in line with the brand’s values…Any time that an employee spends thinking about how to correctly implement the tone of voice is time well spent toward understanding and living the overall brand.”[12]

This is what makes the entire Nestlé meltdown a tragedy.  It was a matter of a few sentences.  As mentioned earlier, Nestlé eventually addressed the issue of how they obtained palm oil.  Assuming they would have done this even had the situation not escalated, all they needed was the correct response.  However, a culture that must exist inside a company that would allow for the behavior as seen by the Nestlé Facebook moderator is likely not a culture that is interested in listening to people to begin with.  Therefore, it is questionable as to whether or not they would have taken relatively swift action to change their business practices.  There are likely much bigger issues to be addressed regarding Nestlé’s internal culture and brand strategy.

Michelle Trip, brand consultant and social media strategist, shows further evidence of these deeper issues:

“Are we surprised that Nestlé was the next big brand to experience epic brand fail whale? Not after I came across this press release issued by Nestlé looking for “FUNterns” to promote one of their product lines in social media. Seriously. They were looking for “digitally-skilled marketing mavens” for internships. The only real qualifications for these skilled mavens were that the applicants be at least 18 years old and feel equally comfortable on Facebook as they are having a night out on the town…after reading the back-and-forth on the Nestlé Facebook Fan Page my guess is they’ll let pretty much anyone have a whack at it.”[13]

Brand strategy regarding social media is still somewhat nascent.  Many companies view it as something that is required for relevance but also view it as being rather trivial.  It is probably safe to say this was Nestlé’s posture before the Greenpeace incident.  However, thinking it trivial is perhaps the most dangerous approach to social media engagement.  When it comes to passionate people surrounding your brand—for good or ill—triviality is harmful.

Nestlé’s negative experiences in the world of social media are not restricted to the event discussed in this article.  Furthermore, Nestlé is far from being the only brand to make substantial errors in the realm: the list is long and continues to grow.  This undoubtedly makes for a lot of nervous execs.  This is not a bad thing.  In the words of Jeff Jarvis: “[t]he age of caveat emptor [buyer beware] is over,” and the era of ‘seller beware’ is dawning[14].  Brands should feel the ground moving beneath their feet, and if they are not prepared for the shift, they should be nervous.  However, avoiding social media is not an option.  A brand handles it well or handles it poorly—either by negligence or ignorance.

[A]voiding social media is not an option.  A brand handles it well or handles it poorly—either by negligence or ignorance.

[2] Einhorn, Bruce. “China Milk Scandal Update: Nestlé Hits Back.” Bloomberg Businessweek. October 2, 2008. http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/eyeonasia/archives/2008/10/china_milk_scandal_update_Nestlé_hits_back.html (accessed October 26, 2010).

[3] PR Week, Hit or Miss? Nestlé faces a storm of criticism on social media sites. March 26, 2010 faces storm of criticism on social media sites 2010): 2.

[4] Patel, Kunnur and Emily Bryson York. Nestlé to Facebook Fans: Consider Yourself Embraced. March 19, 2010. http://adage.com/adages/post?article_id=142881 (accessed October 23, 2010).

[5] About Filtering. http://opennet.net/about-filtering (accessed October 24, 2010).

[6] Lee, Julian. “Handling bad PR can be sticky, Nestlé finds.” Sydney Morning Herald, March 26, 2010: 11.

[7] Porter, Joshua. Designing for the Social Web. Berkeley, CA: New Riders, 2008: 49.

[8] Jarvis, Jeff. Dell hell: Seller beware. July 1, 2005. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/07/01/dell-hell-seller-beware/ (accessed October 26, 2010).

[9] Porter, Joshua. Designing for the Social Web. Berkeley, CA: New Riders, 2008: 49.

[10] Solis, Brian. Engage! The Complete Guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010: 209.

[11] Solis, Brian. Engage! The Complete Guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010: 209.

[12] Mitchell, Rob. Lose the Jargon, Voice Your Brand. September 19, 2005. http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=281 (accessed October 23, 2010).

[13] Trip, Michelle. “Social Media Smack Talk: When Having a Bad Day Goes Wrong.” Brand Forward. March 20, 2010. http://michelletripp.com/index.php/2010/03/20/social-media-smack-talk-Nestlé-facebook-marketing/ (accessed October 24, 2010).

[14] Jarvis, Jeff. Dell hell: Seller beware. July 1, 2005. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2005/07/01/dell-hell-seller-beware/ (accessed October 26, 2010).

Description

One of the main reasons Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation brought me on-board was to design and develop a mobile-optimized version of their website. Currently, it is still under construction but near completion.

Screenshots

download pdf of article

Introduction

In 2009, the magazine Art in America published the following letter to the editor:

“I work at 45^th Street and Sixth Avenue in New York City.  One evening some years ago, I walked across a traffic island at 4^th and Seventh Avenue, and heard a strange sound coming from the sidewalk grating.  It was metallic, deep and harmonic, with what you might call an urban New York mechanical strength.  The sound had no discernable notes, so it wasn’t really musical, but it wasn’t noise either.  It seemed to ebb and flow like a musical composition.  I asked a police officer about the source of the haunting sound; he didn’t know.  Along with many other people, I often returned to that area of Times Square specifically to listen.  At one point it occurred to me that this was a work of sound art.  I wrote to the Museum of Modern Art to inquire, but got no answer.  Recently, I picked up a copy of Art in America and read the obituary of artist Max Neuhaus.  To my surprise, I found out that he had created the sound work in 1977…Like thousands of others, I am grateful to the artist for giving me the experience of his work.”[1]

Much commentary surrounding Max Neuhaus addresses his relationship with visual artists, his concern with space, and the difficulty of classifying what type of art he creates.  However, what is perhaps lost is the capacity of a Neuhaus work to reach through a public space and subtly affect a passerby’s perspective—as is attested to in the above letter.  This paper intends to explore the connection between Neuhaus’s pieces and how they serve both as representatives of phenomenology and triggers into phenomenological transcendence.  In making these connections, the human experience of the works can be better understood.

This paper intends to explore the connection between Neuhaus’s pieces and how they serve both as representatives of phenomenology and triggers into phenomenological transcendence.

A Brief Biography

According to his sister, Neuhaus was a natural born drummer, banging pots at an early age.  His mother was a pianist, and his father was a chemical engineer.  A perhaps fitting combination that could be seen influencing the musical and technological rigor found in Neuhaus’s approach to art later in his life.  He received a bachelor’s and a master’s degree from the Manhattan School of Music.[2]

Neuhaus was a successful percussionist in his twenties:

“As a soloist, Mr. Neuhaus performed concerts in prominent halls. ‘Neuhaus Rubs, Tickles and Pats Variety of Instruments,’ said a headline in The New York Times with a review of a 1964 performance in Carnegie Recital Hall.  And his recordings were testaments to a virtuosity that was matched by few other percussionists.”[3]

Some of these recordings are said to have some of the finest interpretations by such modern composers as John Cage.[4]

At the age of 28, Neuhaus decided he was finished with the traditional creation and reception of music.  He stopped performing.  Instead, he began to develop a relationship of working with sound that was more direct and more concerned with placing sound in a space, rather than an event. “Neuhaus’s work stems from the assumption that our perception of a place depends as much on what we hear as on what we see, even if the aural sphere is much less conspicuous.”[5] More often than not, Neuhaus and commentary surrounding him claim that his move into the art world was a move away from the world and title of musician.  Despite being influenced by Cage, Neuhaus move was toward the public space and the concept of sound as a means of exploring space; whereas, Cage was still largely concerned with the concert hall.  For the most part, Neuhaus denied the title of musician and did not classify his work as music.  This was probably a matter of framing how people approached his work rather than an academic classification.

For the most part, Neuhaus denied the title of musician and did not classify his work as music.  This was probably a matter of framing how people approached his work rather than an academic classification.

Neuhaus’ Art

Max Neuhaus Installing Times Square piece

As far as titles go, Neuhaus seemed to altogether dislike them.  He was rather skeptical of the term ‘sound art’ despite supposedly being the person that coined the phrase ‘sound installation’.[6] Many commentators arrive at the title of “sculptor” for Neuhaus.  This term is not without historical import.  The 1960’s saw a generation of artists moving from the object to the physical space occupied by the object.  Visual artists executing this shift often relied on sculpture to alter and interact with space.  Sculptural pieces established the site specificity integral to the movement.  Max Neuhaus’s work—with the exception of its non-visual quality—is most easily classified in this movement, and this is perhaps why he is often classified as a sculptor.

Neuhaus eventually began classifying his pieces as belonging to either of two categories: ‘moment works’ or ‘place works’.

“The moment pieces don’t construct places, but they cause this realization of place to happen when they disappear; in the same way that the place pieces do not construct time, but they allow your own realization of time to happen within their static nature.  Each one generates in the perceiver the opposite of what it is: the moment pieces generate an instant of being in one’s own place; place pieces generate a period of being in one’s own time.  They are two opposites; each one is what the other is not.”[7]

The Times Square piece mentioned in the letter to the editor at the beginning of this paper is a ‘place piece’, because the sound used in the piece is a constant drone.  The place has been determined by the artist—hence the categorization—but there is no predetermined time, because the drone does not waiver or end.  However, pertinent to this paper are Neuhaus’s series of Time Pieces, which are his most noteworthy moment works.

The Time Pieces

The first time piece was installed in the Austrian city of Graz, a fitting site with a rich history of sound as a signifier of community events—when to attend church, when the school day was over, when to seek refuge, and so on.

“Within this spirit, Neuhaus’ Time Piece Graz creates a space outdoors around the Kunsthaus that is defined with sound. It occurs periodically as a sound signal. Unlike the traditional sound signal of a bell, though, whose sound commences at its peak and then slowly dies out, at the Kunsthaus Neuhaus has created a sound that enters the consciousness of passers-by when it disappears. Beginning inaudibly ten minutes before each hour, the sound gradually grows. Five minutes before the hour, at its peak, it suddenly stops, creating a moment of stillness.  Thus, this building, which as a house of art is focused upon human perception, at regular intervals emits a signal that momentarily reminds people of its presence. Max Neuhaus has given the Kunsthaus Graz its voice.”[8]

This quote is helpful in understanding how the piece operates.  However, it could be misleading.  The sound emitted by the piece—while it was sculpted specifically for the place—is not the voice of the museum.  Rather, the sound of the time piece gives way to the aleatoric, natural sounds that already exist in the space.  The immediate cessation of sound from the piece calls a subject’s attention out of herself—out of what may well be an internal focus—to an external perspective, to the sound of the space and, consequently, the space itself.  It is this concern with perspective that makes many connections with the philosophy of phenomenology.

Phenomenology, (Very) Briefly

Phenomenology is a philosophical movement born in the early part of the twentieth century, created by German philosopher Edmund Husserl.  It has been critiqued and adopted in whole or in parts by thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre.  It still persists today as being one of the more substantial movements of the twentieth century; however, it remains—as it began—an underdog of sorts and challenger to the more prevalent systems of modern thought.

“In the Cartesian, Hobbesian, and Lockean traditions…, we are told that when we are conscious, we are primarily aware of ourselves or our own ideas.  Consciousness is taken to be like a bubble or an enclosed cabinet; the mind comes in a box.  Impressions and concepts occur in this enclosed space, in this circle of ideas and experiences, and our awareness is directed toward them, not directly toward the things ‘outside’…[W]e are caught in what has been called an ‘egocentric predicament’; all we can really be sure of at the start is our own conscious existence and the states of that consciousness.”[9]

Phenomenology challenges this ‘egocentric predicament’.  Instead, phenomenology asserts all consciousness is consciousness of something.  That is, “all our awareness is directed toward objects.”[10] Thus, objective reality is knowable in a direct way.  This is, of course, an over-simplified description.  This paper is not intended to unpack the entirety of the system of thought.  However, accessible, basic components of the philosophy will be seen through Neuhaus’ time pieces.

Intentionality is perhaps the most fundamental concept in phenomenology.  The word refers to how a person engages with and is engaged by the world and objects therein.  Sokolowski puts a finer tip on it:

“The core doctrine in phenomenology is the teaching that every act of consciousness we perform, every experience that we have, is intentional: it is essentially ‘consciousness of’ or an ‘experience of’ something or other.  All our awareness is directed toward objects…  Every act of consciousness, every experience, is correlated with an object.  Every intending has its intended object.”[11]

The core doctrine in phenomenology is the teaching that every act of consciousness we perform, every experience that we have, is intentional: it is essentially ‘consciousness of’ or an ‘experience of’ something or other.  All our awareness is directed toward objects…  Every act of consciousness, every experience, is correlated with an object.  Every intending has its intended object.

Phenomenology & The Time Pieces

Intentionality is the most basic connection a person has with the works of Neuhaus.  If intentionality is a combined “effort” on behalf of both an object as well as the beholder, sound personifies the furthest reach an object can have.  Whereas, most visual arts reach out only when they are in a viewing range, sound enters the ear and is processed by the brain whether or not it is a person’s locus.  Neuhaus claims that we perceive place or space with the ear as much as the eye, claiming “what the eye perceives is more concrete; whereas, what the ear perceives is immaterial.  This potentially makes it more powerful.”[12]

Intentionality plays an important role in destroying the earlier-discussed egocentric predicament.  It affirms not only does an external reality exist, but an individual perspective is able to know and engage with it.  A shared, external reality also re-enforces the idea of the public individual or the public ego.  Our actions do not take place in a void separate from others nor does even our pondering or reasoning—all of this is correlated between the individual and the world.  Phenomenology asserts that reasoning in the life of a human is a public thing:

“It is not enclosed in the solitude or privacy of a ‘sphere of consciousness.’ It is expressed in manifest conduct and achievements, in human beings who are walking around, talking to one another, examining scientific instruments, focusing a laser beam on a target, digging a trench at an archeological site, writing a letter to a friend, trying to persuade someone to vote for a certain proposal.  Is it present in words, pictures, and flags…It is the rational animal, not the solitary awareness, not the large, hollow sphere of consciousness, that enters into rational life.  The public life of reason is lived by the transcendental ego, who is also a public entity.”[13]

Phenomenology’s idea of the public ego can be seen quite clearly in the communal qualities of Neuhaus’s moment pieces.  For one, their placement is often within a certain geographical community, with a sound tailored for the space.

“Neuhaus organized earlier time pieces in such a way that the moment of silence occurred at familiar times of day, on the hour, the half hour.  An obvious reference here is the church bells that summon the faithful to worship at fixed times and contribute, wherever they are heard, to the formation of a sense of community.”[14]

This approach is apparent especially in his Time Piece Stommeln which is placed near an abandoned synagogue and is activated twelve times daily in accordance with Jewish law.  Commenting on the synagogue’s use of the bell when the facility was still active, Neuhaus states that “if you were outside the sound of the bell, you had no information; you were outside the community.”[15] Thus, many of the time pieces serve as a reminder of current community or—in the case of Time Piece Stommeln—a community that has been lost.

Phenomenology has a relatively conservative view of abstraction.  It claims the modern person uses it too frequently and inappropriately. “We can speak about pitch without mentioning sound; we can refer to hue without mentioning color; we can talk about vision without mentioning the eye.”[16] This is possible, because language allows us to segment and extract a whole into parts.  It is, of course, impossible to experience pitch without sound or hue without color, but language allows a person to segment and extract reality into pieces.  The danger in this—the danger that phenomenology warns of—is that a person may come to understand these parts as existing independently.  This would seriously hamper an individual’s ability to perceive and reason correctly.

“People are always wanting to record these sounds, because we are so used to making a product out of sound.  To record a sound like this and think of it as a reproduction of the artwork is as silly as scraping all the paint off of a painting, putting it in a box, and saying, ‘here’s the painting’.”[17] In this quote, Neuhaus puts forth a warning very similar to that of phenomenology regarding abstraction.  A Cartesian mindset is tempted to dismantle the whole into separate parts, thinking that analysis or appreciation is possible when the parts are perceived separate from one another.  Phenomenology asserts this severely hamstrings the whole and stilts the perception of reality.  Likewise, Neuhaus’ asserts this destroys his artwork.

To record a sound like this and think of it as a reproduction of the artwork is as silly as scraping all the paint off of a painting, putting it in a box, and saying, ‘here’s the painting’.”

Phenomenology has a term for the default mode in which we experience the world and things in the world.  It is called the natural attitude.  In this mode, there are assumptions made in order to navigate a complex, layered reality.  Philosophical reflection is not present in the natural attitude.  To this point, the natural attitude is sometimes classified as prephilosophical.

The philosophical attitude is the called the phenomenological attitude:

“When we move into the phenomenological attitude, we become something like detached observers of the passing scene or like spectators at a game.  We become onlookers.  We contemplate the involvements we have with the world and with things in it, and we contemplate the world in its human involvement.  We are no longer simply participants in the world; we contemplate what it is to be a participant in the world and in manifestations.”[18]

This is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the time pieces.  All the phenomenological attributes of the time pieces that have been mentioned so far play a part in triggering a shift in philosophical perspective. Neuhaus never explicitly connects his work with phenomenology, but much of the commentary he provides dances around the subject of how his works affect a subject’s perspective.  “I see these works not as definers of a single frame of mind for all individuals, but as catalysts for shifts in frames of mind.”[19]

I see these works not as definers of a single frame of mind for all individuals, but as catalysts for shifts in frames of mind.

As can be seen in the letter-to-the-editor at the beginning of this paper, the subject experienced this intended shift while experience Neuhaus’s Times Square—a place piece.  As the subject traversed a busy, public space, he noticed something—a subtly improbable sound.  In trying to comprehend the sound, he shifted from the natural attitude into the phenomenological.  He bracketed the sound to study it.  In so doing he undoubtedly had to consider other sounds in the space, other people in the space, his own participation in the space.

This experience is repeated in the area of Neuhaus’s time pieces—only the experience of place is heightened.  Should the subject ever hear the improbable sound of a time piece, it is likely within a few seconds of the sound suddenly disappearing.  Otherwise, the subject only notices the sudden cessation—not the actual sound of the piece.  In either case, the subject enters the phenomenological attitude without the presence of the probable sound.  Instead, in the sound’s absence, the subject’s phenomenological focus is on the sound of the surrounding space and, thusly, the surrounding space itself.

Both Neuhaus and phenomenology also account for the inevitable lack of transcendental reduction in some of the subjects of the time pieces.  In other words, phenomenology and the time pieces are not invalidated or unsuccessful if the subject does not experience a philosophical shift or even should the subject fail to notice the artwork.  “The piece isn’t meant to startle…In fact, I never do a work where everybody stops and notices it in a public space.  I want about fifty percent of the people who walk through it to not notice it.” [20] Furthermore, Neuhaus claims the aesthetic experience is a natural one that needs no indoctrination.[21] Built into the pieces then is a space and dignity for the natural attitude, how surroundings are naturally perceived by humans.

[P]henomenology and the time pieces are not invalidated or unsuccessful if the subject does not experience a philosophical shift or even should the subject fail to notice the artwork.

This rings true for phenomenology.  Often this feature of phenomenology is viewed by its proponents as a means of trumping other modern philosophies.

“One of the dangers to philosophy is that it may think that it can replace the prephilosophical life…The most important contribution phenomenology has made to culture and the intellectual life is to have validated the truth of prephilosophical life, experience, and thinking.  There must be true opinion, there must be prior doxa [default acceptance of self-evident truths], if there is to be philosophy.  Classical Greek and medieval thought understood that prephilosophical reason achieves truth and evidence, and that philosophical reflection comes afterward and does not disturb what goes before it…Phenomenology joins this classical understanding…”[22]

The prephilosophical life could be equated to the pre-conceptual engagement of a subject with a time piece.  Neuhaus, in his lean toward a more democratic reception of art, was interested in validating basic connections subjects may (or may not) have with his work.

Conclusion

It is true that any piece of art—or any thing, for that matter—can be viewed in a phenomenological framework.  This is the point of the philosophy.  However, very few artworks contain the elements and goals that foster the shift from the natural attitude to the phenomenological attitude.  Even fewer represent so well the tenants of phenomenology.  To analyze or appreciate the time pieces, it would seem impossible to fully do so without a grasp of phenomenological thought.  I suspect this understanding could successfully be applied to Neuhaus’s entire body of work.

Unfortunately, many commentators and critics hang onto the what-was-once-unique ideas of how Neuhaus shaped sound to shape space.  Critics then lump him in with the minimalist visual artists of the late 1960’s, and laud him for his defying of disciplinary classifications.  In other words, he becomes another piece in the art historical narrative of the avant garde.  The actual experience of his works, how it subtly or overtly affects the populace—which seemed to be of concern to Neuhaus—is rarely explored in-depth.

Footnotes

[1] Steven Ross, “Aural Remembrance,” Art in America, December 2009: 24.

[2] Bruce Weber, “Max Neuhaus, Who Made Aural Artwork, Dies at 69,” The New York Times, February 9, 2009.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Daniela Cascella, “Max Neuhaus,” Contemporary 75 (2005): 38-39.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Daniela Cascella, “Max Neuhaus,” Contemporary 75 (2005): 38-39.

[7] Max Neuhaus, Max Neuhaus: Sound Works, Vol. I, II vols. (Ostfildern: Cantz Verlag, 1994), 101.

[8] Time Piece Graz – Kunsthaus Graz, 2010, http://www.museum-joanneum.at/en/kunsthaus/time_piece_graz (accessed May 15, 2010).

[9] Robert Sokolowski, Introduction to Phenomenology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 9.

[10] Ibid., 8.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Max Neuhaus – Times Square, directed by Rory Logsdail, 2002.

[13] Robert Sokolowski, Introduction to Phenomenology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 119.

[14] Ulrich Loock, “The Time Piece for the Stommeln Synagogue”,” Max Neuhaus Website, 2007, http://www.max-neuhaus.info/ (accessed May 2, 2010).

[15] Max Neuhaus, Max Neuhaus: Sound Works, Vol. I, II vols. (Ostfildern: Cantz Verlag, 1994), 100.

[16] Robert Sokolowski, Introduction to Phenomenology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 24.

[17] Time Piece Stommeln, directed by Werner Hannappel, 2007.

[18] Robert Sokolowski, Introduction to Phenomenology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 48.

[19] Lynn Cooke, “Introduction,” in Max Neuhaus: Times Square, Time Piece Beacon, 23-27 (New York: Yale University Press, 2009), 23.

[20] Max Neuhaus – Times Square, directed by Rory Logsdail, 2002.

[21] Max Neuhaus, The Institutional Beast, Vol. I, in Max Neuhaus: Sound Works, 80-84 (Ostfildern: Cantz Verlag, 1994), 82.

[22] Robert Sokolowski, Introduction to Phenomenology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 63-64.

Bibliography

Cascella, Daniela. “Max Neuhaus.” Contemporary 75 (2005): 38-39.

Cooke, Lynn. “Introduction.” In Max Neuhaus: Times Square, Time Piece Beacon, 23-27. New York: Yale University Press, 2009.

Loock, Ulrich. “The Time Piece for the Stommeln Synagogue”.” Max Neuhaus Website. 2007. http://www.max-neuhaus.info/ (accessed May 2, 2010).

Max Neuhaus – Times Square. Directed by Rory Logsdail. Produced by Firefly Pictures. Performed by Max Neuhaus. 2002.

—. Max Neuhaus: Sound Works. Vol. I. II vols. Ostfildern: Cantz Verlag, 1994.

Neuhaus, Max. The Institutional Beast. Vol. I, in Max Neuhaus: Sound Works, 80-84. Ostfildern: Cantz Verlag, 1994.

Time Piece Stommeln. Directed by Werner Hannappel. Performed by Max Neuhaus. 2007.

Pakesh, Peter and Ulrich Loock. “A Talk between Peter Pakesh and Ulrch Loock about Max Neuhaus’s Time Pieces.” Max Neuhaus Website. 2007. http://max-neuhaus.info (accessed May 13, 2010).

Ross, Steven. “Aural Remembrance.” Art in America, December 2009: 24.

Sokolowski, Robert. Introduction to Phenomenology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Time Piece Graz – Kunsthaus Graz. 2010. http://www.museum-joanneum.at/en/kunsthaus/time_piece_graz (accessed May 15, 2010).

Weber, Bruce. “Max Neuhaus, Who Made Aural Artwork, Dies at 69.” The New York Times, February 9, 2009.