Times Square Strategies and Contingencies of Preserving Sonic Art
C h a r l e s E p p l e y
The author traces the artistic and institutional complexities of preserving T could not provide long-term support. Liaising with agencies C sonic art. He situates these problems in an analysis of the iconic public like the NYC Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and sound installation Times Square (1977–1992; 2002–present), which the Department of Transportation (DOT) allowed Neuhaus was constructed in an abandoned subway ventilation chamber by sonic ABSTRA artist Max Neuhaus (1939–2009). Next, the author describes how it to create innovative public works like Times Square. How- aided a revitalization of the Times Square district but fell into disrepair ever, the lack of permanent institutional support—prior to and was dismantled in 1992. The author then describes a 2002 the work’s acquisition by the Dia Art Foundation (DAF) in reconstruction that incorporated long-term speculative self-preservation 2002—repeatedly threatened its preservation. Constructed strategies. Finally, the author discusses the acquisition of Times Square in an urban center, Times Square is tethered to a site prone by the Dia Art Foundation, highlighting challenges that circumscribe to—perhaps defined by—change. Indeed, Åsa Stjerna argues preserving sonic art. that Times Square is inscribed with “new codes and mean- ings” that reflect environmental changes to an artwork “in- Max Neuhaus (1939–2009) was a leading figure in the fields tended to be permanent” [7]. This article shows how artistic of postwar experimental music and sonic art, specifically in instability informed Times Square from the outset, discusses the formation of sound installation [1]. Unlike a performed original and subsequent preservation strategies and high- composition that organizes sound in linear time, sound in- lights the complications of producing sonic art in public stallation positions sound in continuous nonlinear space space circumscribed by conflicting institutional authorities with no beginning or ending [2]. Neuhaus—a virtuoso per- and ideologies. cussionist who toured with Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez and John Cage—investigated artistic sound beyond Times Square: music following his departure from the concert hall in 1968 Constructing an Invisible Monument (abandoning a “proscenium situation” that organizes people Public monuments typically have a strong visual and physi- into a fixed hierarchy: composer, performer and audience) cal presence. Whether figurative or abstract, a monument [3]. Neuhaus’s live electroacoustic improvisations, antimusi- represents memories or concepts that relate the structure to cal situations and postmusical sound environments negated its location, community or society [8]. Times Square is made such divisions, articulating a sonic practice that invited of sound and has no obvious visual reference, no particular listeners to “listen in [their] own time” [4]. In 1974—while meaning and no plaque (as seen in Fig. 1). The work oper- planning his iconic Midtown Manhattan installation Times ates similarly to other experiments in monumental sculpture Square (1977–1992; 2002–present)—Neuhaus said: “I’m not of the 1970s (e.g. the architectural interventions of Gordon interested in making music exclusively for musicians or mu- Matta-Clark, colossal icons of Claes Oldenburg, barren steel sically initiated audiences. I am interested in making music plates of Richard Serra or sprawling social sculptures of for people” [5]. Christo and Jeanne-Claude) [9]. Times Square complicates However, Neuhaus often spoke of fighting with the “insti- these boundaries further by defining place with an ephem- tutional beast” [6]. His phrase refers to complications derived eral medium [10]. However, sound is a physical process that from interacting with institutions—artistic, municipal and challenges preconceptions of sculptural materiality. Indeed, corporate—on which he relied to produce artworks but that music critic John Rockwell once described Neuhaus’s instal-
Charles Eppley (art historian, curator), Department of Art, 2224 Staller Center lations as the “aural equivalent of a visual-arts earthwork” [11]. for the Arts, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5400, U.S.A. Email:
©2017 ISAST doi:10.1162/LMJ_a_01003 LEONARDO MUSIC JOURNAL, Vol. 27, pp. 21–26, 2017 21
Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LMJ_a_01003 by guest on 27 September 2021 very special. It is roughly triangular in shape, with a series of tunnels of different lengths leading off one side and [a] small chamber at one end. My preliminary underground survey of the location indicates these chambers have dis- tinctive sound resonances. . . . I find these particular sound qualities extremely interesting [16].
Neuhaus conducted acoustic experiments in the chamber, observing how “each sound inserted into the piece is multi- plied as it circles the loop,” and introduced and manipulated electronic sounds to intensify this acoustic effect: acoustic resonance [17]. Acoustic resonance is a phenomenon whereby a geometri- cal object made from a medium (solid or fluid) amplifies specific natural frequencies when excited by exterior sound or vibration [18]. Every physical material that is able to store energy is resonant once delimited by a geometrical shape (e.g. air in a triangular chamber) and a medium density that de- termines sound wave propagation speed. When Neuhaus’s electronic tones enter the chamber, they pass over hard con- crete surfaces and multiply, amplify and intensify (“circles the loop”), producing an audible rumble at the surface. One hears not simply the sound of oscillators but a combination of tones propagated, amplified and resonated through the chamber. Sound is not amplified on the site but is generated in the site (and is physically, rather than rhetorically, site spe- Fig. 1. Max Neuhaus, Times Square, sound installation at Broadway cific). However, Neuhaus also claimed that his sounds were between 45th and 46th Streets, New York City, 1976. (Photo © Estate of Max Neuhaus) less important than their psychoacoustical and social func- tions: “My focus is not on making sound works which are ex- hibited to people’s ears, but on affecting the way they perceive Times Square is absorbed into its surrounding site, one of a space by adjusting or shifting its sound” [19]. Neuhaus’s the busiest, loudest and most public of spaces in the United States. Its low-pitched droning hum is amplified from a loud- speaker placed in a chamber beneath a nondescript patch of ventilation grates (as seen in Fig. 2) and heard by listeners who walk across its surface. In 1984, Neuhaus described how Times Square “can be walked through and not noticed. The [sonic] threshold . . . is a crucial factor. I try to find a point . . . where the [sounds] are at the threshold of being there and not there” [12]. However, the piece is not undetectable. Neuhaus wanted listeners to find his sounds without “making them so obvious that they are forced to find them” [13]. He prompted listeners to engage the site dialectically: Constant electronic drones are contrasted with stilted sounds of traffic, pedestrian banter and industrial noise to enact a dialogue between artistic and nonartistic sound. Neuhaus described Times Square as an “invisible unmarked block of sound” and “an impossibility within its context” [14]. Neuhaus highlighted how the work both affirms and evades material and perceptive boundaries by being present but not seen, heard but not known, underscoring its dualistic physical and psychoacoustical structure. Neuhaus eventually viewed the soundscape—or the preexisting sounds of the lo- cation—as part of the work [15]. However, he was originally interested in the chamber’s unique acoustic space: Fig. 2. Max Neuhaus, Times Square, sound installation at The ventilation chamber itself, where the loudspeakers Broadway between 45th and 46th Streets, New York City, and generating electronics will be located, is acoustically 1976. (Photo © Estate of Max Neuhaus)
22 Eppley, Times Square
Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LMJ_a_01003 by guest on 27 September 2021 primary goal was to affect how space is perceived through the Arts grant, but one council member argued it was “not a sound, not to present sound-in-itself (i.e. subjective listening responsible way to spend the public’s money” [28]. Indeed, rather than objective audition). Neuhaus was mocked publicly as a “Schubert of the subways” [29]. The work was completed in September of 1977 (despite Times Square, 1977–1992 mounting pressure from the Rockefeller Foundation to ac- Neuhaus completed Times Square in 1977, but the work was count for expenses) [30]. conceived as early as 1973 [20]. He exhausted financial and Despite Neuhaus’s initial success in producing the work, social capital to conceive, design and implement the project Times Square quickly fell into disrepair and was permanently over four years. Although sometimes characterized as a guer- turned off in 1992. The work endured two recurring problems: rilla artwork, Neuhaus received funding from private and The analog oscillators drifted out of tune, and power was fre- federal grants: $300 from the Creative Artists Public Service quently disconnected by construction, subway vibrations or Program, $4,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts weather phenomena [31]. Neuhaus attempted to purchase a and $4,525 from the Rockefeller Foundation [21]. There were direct power line to the chamber but was rebuked by Con also corporate donations: the New York Telephone Com- Edison, which refused to work on city property. Accordingly, pany (NYTC) provided a service truck (seen in Fig. 3) from which Neuhaus worked. The MTA gave explicit, though inconsistent, approval and offered lim- ited support: a $950 stipend and free rental of the abandoned chamber [22]. However, this financial support was neither easily attained nor preserved, and construction required collabora- tion between municipal, corporate and nonprofit institutions with com- peting authorities and ideologies [23]. In 1974, Neuhaus incorporated him- self as Hybrid Energies for Acoustic Resources (HEAR, Inc.) to propose the work to the MTA [24]. The agency believed that crowds would gather to hear the piece, requiring reconstruc- tion of the traffic island, and rejected the proposal [25]. However, Neuhaus gained support from city officials who Fig. 3. Neuhaus working out of the NYTC truck, ca. 1977. (Photo © Estate of Max Neuhaus) desired to revitalize the blighted area. Richard Lam, Director of the Mayor’s Office of Midtown Planning, argued that it would “[improve] the quality of life through esthetic approach [and] reduce abrasive sensory stimuli,” re- ferring to noise pollution [26]. The MTA never officially commissioned the piece, but cooperated by provid- ing access to the site (as seen in Fig 4). Indeed, the project was bureaucrati- cally fraught because the chamber fell between the authority of the MTA and DOT. Kenneth Halpern, Project Man- ager of the Times Square Urban Design Plan, acknowledged the peculiar situ- ation: “Our office has no jurisdiction over the area [but] we are enthusiastic about any project which might lead to a more exciting and interesting Times
Square” [27]. Neuhaus was also nearly Fig. 4. Neuhaus (left) installing a speaker in the Times Square chamber, 1977. awarded a New York State Council on (Photo © Estate of Max Neuhaus)
Eppley, Times Square 23
Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LMJ_a_01003 by guest on 27 September 2021 Neuhaus illegally connected the work to a lamppost [32]. tampering or a technical error, a security system notifies DAF While living in Europe, Neuhaus monitored the work re- [42]. Furthermore, a replica system automatically switches motely by calling a payphone to ask pedestrians if they could on if the first fails (both systems are encased in waterproof hear the sound [33]. If they could not, he arranged repairs (a acrylic, preventing dust accumulation and corrosion). The tactic that he continued afterTimes Square’s 2002 reconstruc- entire setup is also placed behind industrial-strength jail tion, via cellphones and webcams) [34]. When surrogates bars, preventing theft [43]. The changes are not perceived, made repairs, they wore Con Edison outfits in order to work but they alter how Times Square functions and proscribe spe- inconspicuously [35]. Neuhaus also had no long-term finan- cific preservation strategies. However, while DAF retains sole cial support. In 1987—after a one-year hiatus in 1986—the ownership of the piece, the chamber sits between conflicting MTA Arts for Transit program installed a permanent power jurisdictions of public and private space: The MTA owns the line [36]. The renovation did not last. The chain-link fenc- site and DOT can restructure its street-level environment ing securing the work was easily cut, and the copper wiring [44]. DAF is at the vanguard of collecting sonic art but now was repeatedly stolen [37]. Neuhaus dismantled Times Square faces the peculiar challenges of preserving an artwork that after a final MTA rejection: “Better late than never,” he unsuc- requires unconventional maintenance and speculative con- cessfully argued [38]. servation [45]. Neuhaus claimed that Times Square was the “epitome of Times Square Revived: a public place,” an argument evidenced by conflicting power Christine Burgin and the Times Square BID relationships that have shaped the neighborhood over four Neuhaus never gave up on Times Square. In 2000, he enlisted decades [46]. “It has [the stereotype] of being a porno center,” Christine Burgin to manage its reconstruction. However, the Neuhaus said in 1983, “but in fact it is a major pathway and project—priced around $50,000—was prohibitively expen- has a huge variety [and] number of people” [47]. Indeed, sive [39]. Describing Times Square as a historical landmark, such public spaces undergo constant transformation. The Burgin persuaded the Times Square Business Improvement “porno center” establishments were shuttered in the 1990s. District (BID) to fund the project [40]. While Neuhaus re- Commercial tourism flourished in the 2000s. “Green space” tained the sonic character of the original, he deviated sub- initiatives continue to transform the district on physical and stantially from a technical perspective [41]. The new work (as social planes. seen in Fig. 5) was designed to prevent threats that plagued In 2009, the DOT blocked automobile traffic aroundTimes the 1977 version (i.e. inclement weather, electronics corro- Square as part of the Green Light for Midtown renovation sion, power failure and illicit tampering). project, absorbing the island into a new public corridor The analog circuit electronics have been replaced with a and thus redirecting pedestrian flow away from the ventila- digital computer, an audio player and an AIFF audio file, tion grate [48]. In 2016, a granite bench was built alongside preventing tonal drift and ensuring consistency. If there is the work, impeding pedestrian crossing. The MTA advised
Fig. 5. Neuhaus (third from left in background) at Times Square during its reconstruction, ca. 2002. (Photo © Estate of Max Neuhaus)
Fig. 6. Construction around Times Square (16 September 2015). (Photo © John B. Henry)
24 Eppley, Times Square
Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LMJ_a_01003 by guest on 27 September 2021 DAF about DOT construction as early as 2012 [49]. DAF did Miwon Kwon has shown that a “guarantee of a specific not oversee construction, but the contractor was provided relationship between an art work and its site” is undermined with “requirements for protecting the artwork” [50]. These by its “unfixed impermanence” [52]. In this regard, Times changes—symptoms of any public artwork—highlight the Square adapts to its surroundings. However, Times Square is specific problems of preserving Times Square. For example, not only affected by environmental changes on aesthetic or one might assess how the new seating arrangement affects interpretive levels. Such changes directly complicate its pres- acoustic perception, or if its tones need to be “retuned” to ervation and conservation. The strategies and contingencies a new material density (requiring the conservation of Neu- of preserving Times Square between 1977 and 2017 highlight haus’s digital materials and construction of a new AIFF file). the particular challenges of conserving sonic public art on a Times Square was not turned off during construction, but it long-term scale. Despite Neuhaus’s attempts to ensure Times was largely inaccessible and inaudible for a period of sev- Square lasts “50 decades,” the work remains—perhaps inevi- eral months (as seen in Fig. 6) [51]. If required, emergency tably—precarious [53]. conservation efforts would have been difficult to implement during this period.
References and Notes 15 Neuhaus, however, disliked street performers. See Cooke [10] p. 36. 1 Neuhaus did not consider himself a sound artist, but rather an art- 16 Max Neuhaus, “Underground Music(s),” unpublished note, 1974. ist who worked with sound. See Max Neuhaus, “Sound Art?” Liner Max Neuhaus Papers. Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia notes for Volume: Bed of Sound (New York: P.S. 1 Contemporary Art University. Box 10. Folder 12. Center, 2000) CD. 17 Max Neuhaus, unpublished manuscript, ca. 1974. Max Neuhaus Pa- 2 Christoph Cox, “Beyond Representation and Signification: Toward pers. Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University. Box Sonic Materialism,” Journal of Visual Culture 10, No. 2, 145–161 (Au- 10. Folder 12. gust 2011). 18 Hermann Helmholtz, On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological 3 Max Neuhaus, Program Notes (Toronto: York University, 1974) p. 3; Basis for the Theory of Music (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., Alain Cueff, “Max Neuhaus—The Space of Sound,” [1988]Max Neu- 1895) pp. 36–49. haus: Sound Works, Vol. 1, Inscription (Ostfildern-Stuttgart: Cantz, 1994) pp. 87–88. 19 Neuhaus [12] p. 72. 4 Max Neuhaus, Program Notes (Toronto: York University, 1974) p. 4. 20 Neuhaus [12] p. 71. 5 Neuhaus [4] p. 5. 21 “Subway Vent: A Proposal for a Sound Installation for Times Square,” Rockefeller Foundation Records. RG1.3-RG1.8. Subgroup Series 200. 6 Max Neuhaus, “Modus Operandi,” [1980] Max Neuhaus: Sound Box 926. Folder 6220. Works, Vol. 1, Inscription (Ostfildern-Stuttgart: Cantz, 1994) p. 19. 22 See Ref. [21]. 7 Åsa Stjerna, “Aspects on Duration: The Vulnerability of Permanence in Site-Specific Sound Art in Public Space,”Leonardo Music Journal 23 Bureaucratic troubles were highlighted in early reviews. See Ray- 23 (2013) p. 89. mond Ericson, “Max Neuhaus Music Made Especially for Times Square,” New York Times (27 November 1977) p. 113. 8 Michele H. Bogart, The Politics of Urban Beauty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006). 24 Calvin Tomkins, “Onward and Upward with the Arts—Hear,” [1988] Max Neuhaus: Sound Works, Vol. 1, Inscription (Ostfildern-Stuttgart: 9 Neuhaus disliked comparisons to Christo: “Every time the scale of Cantz, 1994) p. 14. my work comes up, [it] comes off as deriving from [Christo] . . . ‘Radio Net’ (the year of the running fence) encompassed the entire 25 Tomkins [24] p. 14. USA and was made up of 25 thousand miles of copper wire, took 26 However, Neuhaus was critical of noise abatement policies. See Is- 500 people to launch, and was heard by four million. How’s that for rael Shenker, “Foundations Get Real and Unreal Pleas for Aid,” New sour grapes?” See Letter from Neuhaus to “Sue” (1979). Max Neuhaus York Times (2 September 1976) p. 45; and Max Neuhaus, “BANG Papers. Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University BOOooom, ThumP, EEEK, tinkle,” New York Times (6 December Library. Box 1. Folder 12. 1974) p. 39. 10 See Lynne Cooke, “Locational Listening,” Max Neuhaus: Times 27 Letter from Kenneth S. Halpern to E. Silberfarb (11 March 1974). Square / Time Piece: Beacon (Beacon, NY: Dia Art Foundation, 2009) Max Neuhaus Papers. Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia pp. 29–44; Max Neuhaus, “Notes on Place and Moment,” [1992] Max University Library. Box 1. Folder 12. Neuhaus: Sound Works, Vol. 1, Inscription (Ostfildern-Stuttgart: Cantz, 1994) pp. 97–101. 28 Tomkins [24]; and Letter from Max Neuhaus to Joan Davidson (30 February 1976). Rockefeller Foundation Records. RG1.3-RG1.8. Sub- 11 John Rockwell, “Avant-Garde: Liz Phillips Sound,” New York Times group Series 200. Box 926. Folder 6220. (14 May 1981) p. 72. 29 Shenker [26] p. 45. 12 Max Neuhaus, “Lecture at the University of Miami,” [1984] Max Neu- haus: Sound Works, Vol. 1, Inscription (Ostfildern-Stuttgart: Cantz, 30 Letter from Howard Bravin to Max Neuhaus (7 January 1976). 1994) p. 72. Rockefeller Foundation Records. RG1.3-RG1.8. Subgroup Series 200. Box 926. Folder 6220. 13 Neuhaus [12] p. 72. 31 See Tomkins [24] p. 15. 14 Max Neuhaus, Max Neuhaus: Sound Works, Vol. 2, Drawings (Ost- fildern-Stuttgart: Cantz, 1994) pp. 24–25. 32 See Tomkins [24] p. 14.
Eppley, Times Square 25
Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LMJ_a_01003 by guest on 27 September 2021 33 Oral interview with Alanna Heiss (7 August 2013). 46 Neuhaus quoted in John Sanborn and Kit Fitzgerald, dirs., re:Soundings: Investigations into the Nature of Modern Music (Pur- 34 See Cooke [10] p. 36. chase, NY: Neuberger Museum, 1983). Video. 35 Oral interview with Max Pyziur (20 July 2016). 47 See Ref. [46]. 36 See John Rockwell, “Beneath a Street, Art Soothes,” New York Times 48 Greenlight for Midtown Evaluation Report (New York: Department (10 November 1987) pp. 37, 40. of Transportation, 2010) p. 1. 37 John Rockwell, “The Rumbling Underfoot? It’s Not a Subway, It’s 49 See Ref. [44]. Art,” New York Times (22 May 2001) p. 68. 50 See Ref. [44]. 38 Letter from Max Neuhaus to Wendy Feuer (22 June 1992). Max Neu- haus Papers. Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia Univer- 51 Stjerna observed similar conditions in 2013. Stjerna [7] p. 89. sity Library. Box 10. Folder 1. 52 Miwon Kwon, One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Loca- 39 “Budget Estimate for Times Square (26 November 2001).” Max Neu- tional Identity (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004) p. 24. haus Papers. Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia Univer- sity. Box 10. Folder 12. 53 Rockwell [36] p. 40. 40 Oral interview with Christine Burgin (29 July 2016). Manuscript received 3 January 2017. 41 “Neuhaus Times Square Install (July 26, 2001).” Max Neuhaus Pa- pers. Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University. Box 10. Folder 12. CHARLES EPPLEY is an art and music historian from Brook- 42 See Ref. [40]. lyn, NY. Charles received his PhD in Art History and Criti- cism from Stony Brook University, where he studied the history 43 See Ref. [40]. of sound in modern and contemporary art. His dissertation, 44 DAF correspondence to Charles Eppley (25 July 2016). “Soundsites: Max Neuhaus, Site-Specificity, and the Material- 45 See Charles Eppley, “Dream Catcher,” Art in America (September ity of Sound as Place,” examines the career of sonic artist Max 2015) pp. 45–46. Neuhaus, 1957–1980.
26 Eppley, Times Square
Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LMJ_a_01003 by guest on 27 September 2021