tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 27, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with the supreme court. justices agreed to uphold a limited version of president trump's travel ban from earlier this year. his order prevents travelers from six primarily muslim countries to enter the united dates. however, the court issued leeway for foreign nationals that can claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the uni -- in the united states. looked at again in october. joining me is adam liptak,
supreme court reporter for "the new york times." tell me what the court said. adam: the court temporarily reinstated part of the travel ban while the court decides what to do about the case, what it will do when it hears arguments in october. this is a temporary measure. it will take part of the travel ban, but not all of it. importantly, the court says if you have some relationship with the united states, if you have some relative, job offer here, you go to college here, then the travel ban does not apply to you. you can still come under the ordinary rules. completeu're a stranger to the united states, president trump is entitled to keep you out while the administration decides what to do about strengthening its screening and vetting procedures. charlie: then you have dissenting judges step forward and say that is putting too much of a burden on the government. adam: that is right, the three
most conservative justices, clarence thomas, --, neil gorsuch, all said it is fine so much as it goes. we would exclude the people with no connections to the united states. but we also want to let the president in this area exercise maximum power and let them make to decision about who exclude. they would've allowed president trump to exclude everyone in this period. charlie: this goes into effect immediately? adam: the administration says they need 72 hours to get up to speed. but for all intents and purposes, this will be the new normal throughout the summer until the court decides in october. it will go into effect very fast. it is not the clearest guidance you have heard. there was a lot of dispute at the administrative level, conflicts at embassies around the world, whether someone has this bona fide connection to the united states.
there may well be litigation over these issues in the summer. charlie: a victory for donald trump? adam: he says it is a 100% running away victory. i would say he is better off after this move than he was before. recall, he has lost in the courts across the board. federal -- he lost in two federal appeals courts. his travel ban has been blocked in part. he is better off today than yesterday. charlie: decisions about the appellate level were against the idea -- they read the fact that the president had made speeches at the campaign, talked about a muslim ban. they said a muslim ban is against the constitution in terms of discriminating on the basis of religion, i assume -- in my right? adam: that is exactly right, as to what are the appeals courts? the fourth circuit in virginia
said the travel ban violates the constitution because it is based on religious animus and violate civil liberties. the ninth circuit in san francisco went on different grounds. presidentt the exceeded his statutory authority, had done more than congress authorized him to do. will consider it after they reconvene in october, the entire travel ban as it exists? or will they look at what happened in between this and how that influence how they ruled? adam: they cannot help but take account of what happens in the real world. sitting here today, it is important to note these give us hintsures about where justices might come back. but they did not speak about the merits of the travel ban. lb a fresh question for the supreme court's in october,
whether it violates the constitution's, exceeds the president's statutory authority. these days of lower court and junctures are provisional measures they give us a taste of where the court is heading, but does not tell you the endgame. surprised when you heard the case and they made the decision they didn't? adam: no, i thought they would take the case. a big case on executive power, they only -- almost have to. i would not think they would have the split the baby approach. that was not on my radar. it may turn out to be one of those lines that are very hard to draw, in practice. charlie: and justice gorsuch, what can we say about his first ruling? adam: we can say a lot about him by now. questioner, active and a completely committed, reliable conservative vote.
house chief of staff had been called the toughest job in the white house. the man currently holding the job is reince priebus. ofis getting the lions share criticism of the chaotic nature of the trump white house and the slow pace of their administrative agenda and personnel. to put into context are three men who upheld the job . jack watson served from june, 1980 until january 1981 as president carter's last chief of staff. john podesta was resident clinton's chief of staff until 2001. and andy carter was chief of staff from -- for george w. bush until april of 2006. joining me is chris whipple, and author of a new history of the white house chiefs of staff --"the gatekeepers: how the white house chiefs of staff define every presidency." i am pleased to have all of them at this table. is it the toughest job, second to the presidency, in washington?
it is the toughest job because you are helping the president do the real toughest job. which means you have to have discipline, and bring order to chaos. you also have to pay attention to what is happening outside the white house, as well as inside the white house. you have to make sure the president is served with the challenge in time to meet the challenge. so when a decision is made, it is relevant and not irrelevant. >> it is also tough because one of the chief roles of the chief of staff is to make sure the president is hearing all the voices he needs to hear. that he is getting all the -- to be an honest broker. to tell theat role, president know, when he needs to be told no. and that is not easy. charlie: that is not easy for anybody, is it? >> no. >> particularly in this white
house. [laughter] >> the president does not like to be told no. charlie: not much give-and-take or compromise in the political world. ce comes out of politics. all of us had some experience doing some policy. but it can be brutal. but it is also a tremendous honor to do it. having done a lot of different jobs over the course of my life, it is the one where you have the most impact most immediately. you see if the most. as andy noted, you're really helping the president achieve what he needs as director of the country. -- at theve as pleasure of the president, but your job is not to please them. >> what i learned from talking to these guys and interviewing 17 living chief of staff's for "the gatekeepers come
copresidents cannot rule having aly without chief of staff as first among equals to execute their agenda, and most importantly, tell them what they do not want to hear. it is a most impossible to overstate the importance of having a chief of staff who is a gatekeeper. he controls access to the oval office and gives the president time and space to think. he is the honest broker, as jack just mentioned, making sure every decision is teed up with information on every side. he prioritizes, helps the president prioritize the agenda. he is in charge of the administration's message. none of that may sound familiar at the moment because in my opinion, we do not have a white house chief of staff who has been empowered. charlie: right now. before these gentlemen -- i am the oldest fella here. charlie: i am the second. a wonderful some
posy him, with john chancellor is the moderator and all the chiefs of staff. and some people who had been key to the administration, like ted sorensen. it was a public event, we all got a question. in athletic terms, what would you compare the chief of staff's job to? some would say quarterback, goalie, to keep the other guy from scoring too much. the one role that comes to my mind immediately is, gavilan catcher. charlie: no one catches the gavilan. someone said, get me a tough s.o .b. do you have to be, to be good? >> it depends on the president's personality. he cannot be inconsistent with
the way the president runs the white house. no, i do not think you have to be an s.o.b. you have to be able to make the tough decision and reassign someone or fire someone. that is not easy. it is not easy because you know these people, are working with these people. toughness, yes. >> there are three functions any chief of staff have to meet. first, is the care and feeding of the president. that is a legit goal challenge. also, paying attention to the state of mind of the president and the emotional roller coaster he may be on. that is a very large job that people do not pay attention to, but it is all-consuming for chief of staff. then you have policy debate. the chief of state -- chief of staff manages policy debate. the process, so there are fewer unintended consequences to the policy.
you have to have lots of views and people speaking truth to power, that is honest broker. >> they are being modest about the white house chief of staff's role. if you look at watergate to the iraqcontra scandal, to the war, to the monica lewinsky scandal, to the botched executive orders on immigration, the white house office chief of staff makes a difference between disaster. think about when jim baker, everyone's choice as the gold standard, when he swapped jobs with the treasury secretary, regan came in and was completely ill-suited to the job. a harebrainedce scheme was cooked up in the white house basement and became the iran-contra scandal. never would have happened on james baker's watch. these guys are typically being modest.
charlie: here is my question, what would you change if you are now -- if you were now chief of staff for donald trump? >> i would try to enforce a rule from the president and everyone tasten the white house, your words before you spit them out or tweak them out -- tweet them out. because the president's words make a difference. they make a difference in the office staff, bureaucracy, congress, the world. i would want discipline around the world for the -- the words that are spoken. and subordinate lay, the white house staff. that is more discipline over, don't leak. >> the first thing i would like is to take his phone away from him. i think this is a chaotic structure. it has been from the very beginning.
into theprevious when white house knowing it would be somewhat chaotic because he had steve bannon coming off the campaign, jared kushner, son-in-law, playing an important role. the national security advisor within a month of the administration. level, i think president trump's success has been in chaos and i think he thought that would work for him as president. at this point, it remains to be seen whether you can be effective as president. certainly, he is having his challenges on capitol hill. about -- if you have the strategic job of setting an agenda to work with the hill on policy, and you are trying to message around that and create
the backdrop and backup so people feel they can stick with you, and every day, the story is changing. they make plans, and they are blown up virtually every day. that, in part, is a result of the investigation and the president's inability to stay away from it. but it is also just the nature of the way he has always conducted himself in business. and certainly the way he conducted himself on the campaign trail. it may be a tall order to get any chief of staff to have the authority to discipline that process. agreeot fundamentally with what andy is saying -- it is a tremendous challenge. >> you cannot run a white house a manhattan real estate firm, with people equally empowered and not a chain of command, with no one to execute the agenda.
is a whited, it house that is broken. it may be broken beyond repair. ultimately, it is not reince priebus's fault. he has made rookie mistakes, but at the end of the day, only donald trump can decide to empower his white house chief of staff to execute his agenda and tell donald trump what he does not want to hear. does anyone imagine that happening anytime soon? charlie: nor can anyone point out somebody who says no to him. i have asked that question all the time. who says no to the president? >> there is another important point in addition, discipline. lacking a house is disciplined message, a disciplined process. constantly, morning, noon, night is not helping. it is putting out inconsistent and contradictory messages, where the president is
disagreeing not only with himself, but the secretary of state or someone else. there is another problem. charlie: secretary of state is trying to mediate the deal between qatar and the arab states and the president is saying, saudi arabia. >> if you would ask me what is , incentral problem alterable -- un problem, there is an insufficient respect for the truth. answers are stated or given -- falsehoods are stated or given every day, one way or the another. statements are made that are untrue, that can be proved to be immediately, untrue. that puts your staff, whether it is your chiefs of staff or secretary, god love them, in an impossible position. you are sending out, day after
day to defend a statement which is not true. assume that you they know it is not true? >> i can't get into the minds of the people who were saying these things or the mind of the president. -- if thereout this is not a respect for the truth, if there is not a respect for the importance and legitimacy of fact, how can you have a rational debate? how can you have rational debates about what policies should be, if no one cares with the truth is, what the realities are? you can't. aat is why there has to be "come to jesus" meeting here sometime. i have low expectations for it happening. >> there are some things that
are so obviously true that the president said were not. day one, how many people attended the inauguration. bizarre thing to ask your press secretary to go out in claim it was the biggest crowd ever on the mall, when it was demonstrably not the biggest crowd ever. probably had more eyeballs endears paying attention because of media, and the fact that more media outlets were covering everything. yes, i think they sometimes challenged it by the reality that they want to deny. charlie: what is the perfect qualification for being chief of staff? >> i really do not think you can define it that way, because the person is, in essence, a partner with the president. different presidents are going to want a different kind of people. in the clinton -- in the
clinton's case, he wanted a lot of input. tried to be gatekeeper with clinton, he would have gone crazy. the care and feeding in part is to work and the understanding of the way the president works. thinker, heendous brings lots of voices to the table, he invites people in. sometimes that can be maddening. but often, it is quite creative. he is a policy guide -- guy. i had to find ways to feed that so he did not feel cut off from people he wanted to talk to. charlie: you had to make sure he saw a lot of information? >> and talk to a lot of people. >> cabinet secretaries used to call me up all the time and say,
i have to call the president and talk to him face-to-face. state -- stay up all night, if there is something you have to say to him, call them up. charlie: didn't work out that way? >> some people were intimidated by that, which means they did not really have to talk to the president. others took advantage of that. i had the advantage of knowing who we talked to every night because i saw the log of his phone calls. the discipline is not to prevent the president from getting information. the discipline is to make sure when he gets information, someone else knows about it besides two people in the oval office. i want to know before, during or after you have visited with the president. the best comply or to that role is actually the president. at the end of the day, he will say, you might want to talk to so and so, he came to see me. if he did not tell you about it,
go see him. >> i do not think any of the guys at this table would have allowed donald trump to be alone in a room with his fbi director, given the circumstances at the time. charlie: they knew he wanted to be alone. >> but no competent chief of staff would have allowed it to happen. >> no empowered chief of staff. >> another quality of a great chief of staff, and i think all of these guys share this -- temperament. s.o.b., butperfect you do not have to be. these guys were grounded, comfortable in their own skin, they had been around the block, they can walk into the oval office, close the door, and the president what he did not want to hear. as dick cheney but it to me, when he was a chief of staff for jerry ford, he said you cannot
have a tough thing you have to tell the president and have eight or nine guys saying, it is your turn. it has got to be one person. unfortunately, we do not have a chief of staff as we speak to him in the white house, they can tell the president, no. charlie: is there anybody in the white house back and tell the president know? wonder if donald trump could find the civilian equivalent of jim mattis, who has the gravitas to change the president's mind and tell him no. he needs to find somebody like that. because history is littered with the wreckage of presidencies that tried to govern this way, including jerry ford's. >> back to your first question, what makes a good chief of staff ? i completely agree with john. the role of them chief of staff will vary drastically from
president of president. see two be hard to presidents more different in the delegation process then-president reagan and president carter. one wanted to assimilate, absorb in his own mind and his own way, vast and of information. i knew that about him. criterion for the chief and the president is, mutual trust. they know each other, know the minds of each other, and they trust each other. , i wouldhief of staff say it is important for him to admire and respect the president, as not just a leader, which he clearly is, by role and the definition, but a moral leader.
conversely, the president needs to know that is chief of staff is not there, self-serving himself. he is there to execute the role for the president in the best possible way he can, given the president's personality and priorities, and goals. ronald reaganoned as a model of failure. arguably, a successful treasury secretary. you cannot be imperial as chief of staff. that was regan's downfall. you have to be like a sports manager. you have tremendous talent in the white house and you have to be able to build a team that is going to be cohesive and work toether, as opposed operating by dictate.
i think that is what he tried to do. it broke down the hall at the national security adviser. he finally stepped in and solved the problem. >> he like to the chief part of the title a lot. i think all of us would agree that a really effective chief is also going to be really good at enabling people to do their jobs. the chief does not try to do it all himself in the same way the president can't, so cannot the chief. the chief has to identify people he or she, that time will come, when we have a woman chief of team that youe know and have confidence in, that you trust, and enable them
to do their jobs. charlie: back to the power thing, one thing it seems to me gives the chief of staff a lot of power is often, you have the last word with the president. you are the last sound in his ear before he makes a decision. it is sometimes said when you have dick cheney around and colin powell around, who would prevail? >> first of all, the chief of staff has to have peripheral vision and know where the people with tunnel vision arm -- are. any helps to make sure that word to the president is not out of context. you want the words to be within context. a strong personality in the white house, it is a team of rivals in every white house,
because they are very competent staffers who are legitimately hired because they have great expertise. many have type a personalities and they think they are the only one with great expertise, and you have to manage that process and make sure the playing field is in fact, level, and not skewed one way because a dominant staffer is dominating the process. found, therd i president would frequently seek me out as the last word. but it was not for much about the decision, it was the process by which the decision was being made by the president. and i would be able to say, sally may have been too aggressive in that meeting and jane was ready to speak up, but she was intimidated by sally. you might want to call jane. >> dennis told me a story in the book. charlie: i was thinking about that very thing. >> at the end of every day, they
would take a while -- walk around the south lawn, -- long. aboutbama was confronted syria and drawing his famous red line and decided ultimately not to retaliate -- >> they did seek congressional approval. charlie: and after that, the resident decided not to. >> came back from his walk and shocked the national security team with what he decided. nnis had the last word in his ear. but he said no, absolutely not. i thought that was an unfair it vantage. -- advantage. he would be a sounding board and honest broker, as he should be. >> you want the president to
have the whole story. you want the president to have the whole story, before he makes the decision. try to protect him against the voices that are the loudest, but not necessarily the truest or best. sometimes said with donald trump, he is 71 years old, that he will not change. was in his 40's, barack obama was in his 40's, jimmy carter was in his early 50's. did they change before your very eyes while they were president, or did they essentially remain the same person? >> i think every president changes as they serve. i mentioned at the beginning, the president will never make an easy decision. he only makes the toughest of the decisions. and sometimes there is no good answer. pick one.options,
but you have to make the decision with such great optimism, the bureaucracy will say the president wants this done, i am with it. congress will say, i will follow. other world leaders like tony blair will say, in standing with you. but they are tough decisions. you want an optimist as president, certainly not a pessimist. if someone walks into the oval office and says i will make a bad decision today, they should not be president. you'll make a tough decision, but it will be the right decision. charlie: thank you, all. the book is called "the gatekeepers: how the white house chiefs of staff define every presidency." this is bloomberg. ♪
i've spent my life planting a size-six, non-slip shoe into that door. on this side, i want my customers to relax and enjoy themselves. but these days it's phones before forks. they want wifi out here. but behind that door, i need a private connection for my business. wifi pro from comcast business. public wifi for your customers. private wifi for your business. strong and secure. good for a door. and a network. comcast business. built for security. built for business. so we need tablets installed... with the menu app ready to roll. in 12 weeks. yeah. ♪ ♪ the world of fast food is being changed by faster networks.
♪ ♪ data, applications, customer experience. ♪ ♪ which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. fast connections everywhere. that's how you outmaneuver. said the artists's job is to be a witness to his time in history. for six decades he served this role, working in painting, sculpture, photography and performance footage. a new exhibition at new york's is the them of modern art brings together more than 250 of these work. "robert rauschenberg: among friends," was organized by leah dickerman, the marlene hess curator at the museum of modern art.
she joins me now to talk about robert rauschenberg, one of the artists i have the great pleasure to have known. when you think about him and his art and someone having this kind of retrospective on this exhibit among friends, within the other great artists, like jasper johns. johns, cy jasper twombly, merce cunningham, john cage, tricia brown. the list of people he collaborated with is so fundamental to what we think of, in terms of culture today. that is how we approach the project. wanted to show he is an artist who made work in dialogue with other people. and together, they laid the foundation for art of our moment in time. charlie: what do you hope we since, --ience, see, sense, as we walk through this exhibition? been skepticalys
about the idea of individual genius, that you go off and sit in your garret and think about yourself and have ideas alone, visited by a muse, a female muse. that is not the way it works. it is not the way it works in science, technological innovation, or in art. we wanted to suggest that throughout rauschenberg's career, you could celebrate creativity in conversation. he collaborated more than anyone else. he is always pulling people into his projects and finding a way to create new works with someone else. we want people to fill that openness, as well. charlie: where does that come from? leah: he is certainly a sociable character. everyone speaks about his gregariousness. i think that he learned when he went to black mountain college,
the open, experimental place. there was dancing and poetry and music, all at the same time. that kind of collaborative approach to making art across disciplines. i do not think he ever left that behind. leah: -- charlie: some remarkable people came through the great institution. leah: yes, he studied with josef albers, whose teaching had an extraordinary impact on him. he had students gather all kinds -- cigarette butts and leaves and scraps of cardboard, and put them together and use collage combinations. he called them combinations. rauschenberg learned that through albers. he met cage and cunningham before and they did performance work, learned dancing. charlie: he was close to jasper johns? leah: they were partners from
1954 through 1961. they were together in a creative and romantic partnership. they push each other in incredible ways. duoss one of the artistic whereby working together, they left the rest of the world behind. they gave each other permission to do things and try things. rauschenberg once wrote that, i would give him an idea and then he would have to give me one, too. they played this game of thinking out loud and critiquing each other's work. in the show, you have jasper untitlednted bronze, cans. and you have work by rauschenberg with cans together. you can see they are contemplating cans and consuming them. charlie: why did they split? leah: i can't tell you the
answer to that. charlie: there are no biographies written about it? leah: no, i do not know the answer to that. but i do know they had an incredible, formative impact on each other. among the greatest artistic partnerships of our time. charlie: who else did he have a great collaborative relationship with? leah: his first collaboration was with an artist named sue wilde, who became his wife. they met in paris and went down to black while together. in many ways, she taught him how to work with someone else. they made great blueprints together. i think that was a young and very formative relationship. and, one of the things that trained him in the relationship of dialogue in partnership. he had a multiyear collaborative relationship with merce cunningham, where he worked making sets and costumes.
but it was more than that, as well. he learned from both merce cunningham and john cage how to think about making art. that relationship was fundamental, as well. charlie: let me take a look at some of the images we have. this is untitled from 1950. leah: this is a work they made right after coming back from this time they had together at black mountain college. they made it in a new york walk-up apartment with ordinary blueprint paper, the kind you would use an architectural firm. they would pose themselves on the paper and then expose the light and have to wash out the developer in the sink. is asking a question about, how can you make a mark on paper that is not a stroke of paint with a brush? how can you figure out other ways of crating images? charlie: and this was one. the next is in a raced de koonin
g drawing. ng andit is de kooni jasper johns. rauschenberg asked himself how to make a drawing out of a racing. he started with his own works and said it did not count, if it was not art. mostnt to his most -- the -- artist. he went to bill de kooning. other people have their oedipal relationships, at a distance, but not rauschenberg. he knocks on the door and de kooning agreed to give him a drawing he could erase. he went through the portfolio files and gave him one he found difficult to a race, full of oily pastels. according to rauschenberg, he spent weeks erasing it and many,
many erasers. then he did nothing with it. he put it in a drawer until two years later, when jasper johns was in his life. that persuaded him to frame it up and put it in exhibition and johns put the "erased de raced -- kooning drawing by robert rauschenberg." fultony're living in street and he calls john cage the composer and asked them to bring his model a ford. he lays out 20 sheets of typewriter paper on the ground, they are glued together. , very cage drive the ford straight, along the typewriter papers, to create this image. he laughed later that cage was both printer and press. called: the next one is
"charlene," from 1954. leah: this is an extraordinary image. it shows you what rauschenberg's revolution was. as he is working, he wants to create an art that lets people in. it but scraps of paper and comics. a light bulb, reflectors, mirror -- all the stuff of the world. i think he is saying, if you want to make art about the real world, it has to include the real world. "bed," 1954, is 1955. leah: this is taking it a step further. pretty soon, he is making a work out of a quilt and pillow. you can see there are strokes of pencil on the pillow that were likely made by cy twombly, another partner and friend working in the studio at that moment of time. things that are
ordinary objects have been turned into a painting. it makes you ask questions about, what is a painting? what are its terms? it suggest the kind of intimacy in a place you live. it reconfigures the idea of painting, as it has been known before, which cap the world out. charlie: the next one "monogram." leah: now he is almost saying, ok, if i can put a piece of paper and a painting or a reflector in a painting, why not put a goat? that is not just a question of size, it is a conundrum. once you put something as big and physically awkward into a painting as a goat, you have changed the boundaries between the space of art in the space of the world. "gift ofthe next one, up hollow," nine fit -- 1959. leah: it references apollo. he says, i can put it on wheels
and drag it around. it is not special. it can be just like any other object, pulled into the middle of the room. "oracle." xt is leah: he is collaborating with a led bylew of engineers, billy cluver. it is a collaboration with technicians. many artists are afraid of technology, but not rauschenberg . he embraces it as the -- adventure of contemporary life. it is equipped with radios and a wireless transistor circuitry. that is the cutting edge of technology at that moment of time, building blocks of our own digital age. the next is "disco shredded wheat.
, usinge goes to captiva heinary boxes, materials said were softness and waist. he would make simple interventions to create a work like this. it is also something looking at a younger generation of artists. using like donald judd, poor and simple materials. charlie: the next is from 1987. are made in houston, he was made the state artist. he gets there, and there is a huge oil glut. he scenes the signs of a distressed economy. cars have been abandoned by the side of the street. he wants to make works that are the thrown off stuff from our american car economy. he wants to show waste souvenirs.
once saidauschenberg painting relates to both art and life. neither can be made, i try to act in the gap between the two. leah: he did not like the idea that a painting would keep the world up. when he came of age in the mid- 1950's, abstract expressionism was the preeminent way of making a work of art. it was a kind of painting where you put it on the wall and there is an idea of psychic imprint in the work. rauschenberg wanted something else to read he was very skeptical about emotionalism. he said there was all this talk about torture and suffering, and i never saw that in a stroke of paint. he wanted something about the world as he encountered it, as he walked around the block or looked at a magazine. he tried to bring those things into his art. charlie: where do you see him in the pantheon of american
artists? leah: i think he is one of the most influential american artists we have seen in the years since world war ii. charlie: pretty high praise. leah: it is. every time you walk into a gallery today, and you see art made out of stuff of the real world, coming off the walls, it is interdisciplinary am a vet embraces technology, formative in its implications, you're seeing the types of capabilities -- possibilities that rauschenberg and his allies made possible. charlie: this is an interview i made in 1997 with rauschenberg. he talks about how he found his greatest joy in life in his work. here is what so many people say about your work in your life. there is a child life and is he 20 -- -- childlike in enthusiasm.
you approach things without risk, you're just on a journey. time isful lot of consumed in apprehension and worry, that could be used in action. i am not fearless. you scare me, you actually do. [laughter] >> how about fun-loving? is that a description of you? i do not separate that from everything else. i go on vacations. right is in working. wholeness,n i feel a
withebration, the unity everything around me. and i feel the least self-conscious. >> when you're working? >> yes. leah: that is lovely. there is an openness to his work, a willingness to invite the world in, and experimental embrace of things. he does not worry about being perfect. charlie: i am awestruck -- the artists i have known, they were happiest when they were working. they were happiest when they were engaged in creating. they say, i do not take vacations. way of being in the world, it is a practice. charlie: it is what they do. way of finding your way in the world, being curious about the world, engaging with
new materials and people. charlie: in doing this program 25 years, one person i wanted to interview but did not have such luck or success was jasper johns. here is an interview in 1997 in which i talked to robert rauschenberg about jasper johns. remember, this was 20 years ago. >> where did you meet jasper johns? influenced did you think you have on each other? i think our main influence is people were the only two trying to do abstract expressionism. people the only two trying to do something else. we were both an audience of one to each other's work. [laughter]
friendship. >> oh, very. i think the thing that made us get along was the fact that we were so different ourselves. travel to streets and get everything, and he dressed windows. we had different studios, that was all right. mimict my time trying to what i saw outdoors. and he tried to create what he felt in his head. i was very tempted to work like de kooning. i would have loved to have done and pollocks. view --espect for their
i am verys a legacy, happy i can have as enviable appointive view as these people that i love so much. charlie: he says it well enough, doesn't he? leah: he does. i never wanted to be a wishy-washy, second-generation abstract expressionist painter. he wanted to create something else, to let art be something else. charlie: the exhibition at the museum of modern art here in new "among friends it is on view until september 17, 2017. leah dickerman.
♪ >> volatility spiking, wall street falling the most in six weeks. a growing unease about the u.s. economy. isa new cyber attack affecting companies and institutions from russia to the east coast. >> the republican agenda hits another speed bump with the health care debate postponed by gop leaders. >> soothing words from the central banks.