Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  PBS  June 28, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT

12:00 pm
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin tonight with healthcare and the announcement today that republicans will delay voting on the senate healthcare bill until their july recess. we talk to ezra klein of vox and andy slavitt, the former acting administrator of the centers for medicare and medicaid services. >> so the kroovment bo of the bill would lead to 22 million people less having insurance but it is actually much worse than that in what they said was going to happen. the real key thing that the congressional budget office found was the way this bill would work, it would put poor people into care that was either so expensive in terms of its premiums or so high in terms of its deductibles that the plan, the plans of the bill is built around would have deductibles of 6,000 or more dollars, they said, basically, no poor people, no low-income folks would actually buy plans under this legislation. >> well, these guys get off the
12:01 pm
air, airplane in their hometown and run into a mob with a kid who they have been pushing this child in a wheelchair because they have disabilities. and that mom gives these senators a piece of their mind, and that happens all the time and part of the reason, part of the reason why i think we are in the situation we are in with people like senator cap poe is they can only avoid the camera and their constituents for so long. they have put a plank out there that wasn't part of repeal and replace, that is hurtful to people, it is bad policy, it is bad politics, and now they have to find their way out of it the. >> rose: and we conclude this evening with architect jacques herzog and the artist and activist ai weiwei. their newest collaboration "hansel & gretel". it is an ins installation at the park avenue armory here in new york city. >> i think this installation should do things, i it should not be a moral 11 or so be
12:02 pm
careful, it should be entertaining and playful but also a deeper experience or, a deep experience or, yes, perception of better understanding, or better understanding of the normal condition, but it also, as we discussed earlier, this morning, it also contains an element which is quite interesting, that people are increasingly surveillanced by public cameras, et cetera but they do that on themselves also. they increase that with the use of mobile phones and public media and social media and that is, that element is also part of the installation with the way we just explained with the camera that catches people, people are really eager to go and discover themselves. so it is not that they feel menaced by that, but it is also a kind of a strange pleasure or a strange satisfaction. >> rose: healthcare and architecture when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is
12:03 pm
provided by the following. >> bank of america. life better >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with healthcare, today senate republican leaders postponed a vote on the legislation to overhaul the affordable care act. senator mitch mcconnell had been pushing for a week for a vote by the end of the week, the delay comes after five senate republicans say they would not support a procedural vote to start debate on the bill. the
12:04 pm
congressional punishment office said the senate bill would leave 22 more millions, 22 million more americans uninsured by the end of the decade by reducing decade by $321 billion. >> the president met with congressional leaders to discuss the bill. >> joining discuss ezra klein, editor in chief of vox, and andy slavitt, former acting administrator of the centers for medicare and medicaid. >> ezra i begin with you since we talked about healthcare a lot, what happened? >> the bill really, the bill received a score from the congressional budget office and that score was fundamentally devastating, so the cbo said it would lead to 22 million fewer people having insurance by 226, but it is work than that, the real key thing the congressional budget office found was the way this bill would work, it would put poor people into care that was either so expensive in terms of its premiums or so high in terms of its deductibles, so that the plan, the bill -- the
12:05 pm
plans of the bill is built around would have deductibles of 6,000 or more dollars, they said, basically, no poor people, no low-income folks would actually buy plans under this legislation. in addition, the cuts to medicaid are truly grievous, they roll tobacco expansion total total bily 2024 and impose a growth rate that really starts to cut medicaid deeply in the ensuing years and a lot of republicans looked at that and said this is not legislation that i can bring home to my state. this is not legislation i can defend supporting they had to hold the vote because not only would they not have wanted to bring the bill to debate but not won a vote to pass. >> rose: andy, do you see it the same? >> yes, i mean, generally speaking, democrats and i think centrists are looking for policies that are going to cover more people and conservatives are generally going to look for policies that reduce costs, and as ezra pointed out, they managed to put forward a bill
12:06 pm
that the cbo says does neither of those two things. and that really means that he has a very difficult challenge, because on both sides of him, the he has got to make up ground, it looked at like the right flank was a little bit stronger but since he put this out, we are seeing probably almost equal numbers of people on both sides saying, hey, wait a minute we want to cover more people and then folks on the other side saying, hey, wait a minute, this is too expensive, we are not meeting our affordability pledge, by the way you can keeping the aca much more in intact than we would have wanted that is between a rock and a hard place and he doesn't have a lot of time to solve it. >> it is, and i know this is simplistic for you guys but it really is the fish user between moderates and conservatives in the republican party. >> i think that i right, but in addition to being a fish user between moderates and conservatives it is a fit fisk r
12:07 pm
between goals, this bill does not do that, it it keeps a lot of the architectural, regulatory structure of the affordable care act in place. the moderates what they wanted it to do is cover more people and stabilize the cost and bring down the market and just make the thing work. it really doesn't do that. so senator mcconnell has ended up in a place where he really is not satisfying anyone. this keeps a basic central at this for the state, at the center of the american healthcare system but it takes away most of the good that the affordable care act was doing. on something andy said here is really important. if you talked to most senate republicans and you said to them what do you want this bill to do? over and over again they tell you they want lower premiums and the kaiser family foundation which is an excellent nonpartisan think tank, they look at what this does on premiums base odd 10 cbo score and if you look at the insurance that is standard under obama care now and insurance covers about 70 percent of the costs, payment, apples to apples it goes up by 74 percent so going out and selling a bill where if
12:08 pm
people want to get as good insurance as they are getting now under obamacare the premiums go up seven tour percent that is a very difficult sell whether you are a conservative or whether you are a more moderate republican. >> do you guys think you could have drafted a bill for mitch mcconnell that would have been able to meet the test of the republican party so that you would lose less than two republican votes? >> well, if you took one factor, which we haven't talked about yet which is tax cuts, off the table, i think you would have a much better chance. because what we really -- what we really have is we have a situation where we have a significant amount of money that comes out of the healthcare system in order to meet this sort of separate need. and it is -- unless you touch those tax cuts, which in effect means starting over, the bill is not really fixable. i don't think there is tinkering you can do to either fix one said or the other, because the fundamental architecture is still going to give two same set
12:09 pm
of answers, a lot of people losing coverage, a lot of affordability problems so i think there are two avenues for mcconnell from here, one of them involves violating probably what the parliamentarian is going to instruct them to, to do and that is go down the route ted cruz would like them to go down and essentially get rid of things like preexisting, and reduce insurance costs, but they will it is reduce the value of insurance dramatically or the other route and i think you are referring to it a couple of minutes ago is go down the path where it doesn't work and he says, we need to bring in chuck shiewm attend democrats and if he does that he has probably a very different architecture and takes tax cuts off the table and begins to focus on surgically fixing some of the challenges in the exchanges. >> rose: he needs the tax cuts on the table to satisfy his conservative base? >> does he? this has been the great question of all of. this look, if they want to do tax cuts they should
12:10 pm
do tax cuts, you make straightforward tax policy and you can figure it out from there, it would be a lot easier than just taking the health insurance away from people. there are about $590 billion of tax cuts in this bill, that is a lot of money, and when you look at the tax cuts going to individuals, you see five percent of them going to the top one percent so the republican party is currently saying they think the taxes paid by rich people in this country right now are a bigger problem than poor people not having health insurance, and nobody else believes that, that is not what donald trump ran on, that's not what senate republicans came on, when you listen to mitch mcconnell say too many people are uninsured and deductibles are too high, senator john cornyn in the senate leadership yesterday tweeted out 28 million people are uninsured under the affordable care act, naahed is true so why not fix the problem. i know that we sort of in washington we have this decokedder ring and we know the central concern for republicans is tax cuts, but when they go out and talk to the country they do not say that and they
12:11 pm
definitely don't say that when talking about healthcare so why not try to solve the healthcare problem and why not take the obama, money, obamacare spending and get a system that is more patient sterned, had insurance regulations constructed in a smarter way, then go out with something you can sell and you can be proud of and you can hold hearings on, we sort of allow them to construct this idea of what is a political reality and they do not need to use this as a vehicle to cut taxes. that was no the pitch no the country in 2016 or in 2014 or in 2012. they could have just come out with a bill that actually solves the problems they themselves said they were going out to solve. >> rose: and yo you could argue, thely bring in andy on, this you could argue because of the mantra of the republicans since the affordable care act passed, we have got to repeal this thing, we have got to do something about this thing and you are saying they could have done that and had electability promise if they hadn't gotten caught in terms of another
12:12 pm
republican mainstream idea, which is we have to reduce taxes. >> i think they knew if they had a referendum on taking healthcare away from communities and hospitals and families across the country in the lower 40 percent income bracket and passing a massive tax cut they would have lost that referendum so i think the question about the close process we have has been answered, why have a closed process? because they couldn't put what they were doing up to the american public. so it is interesting now is what are they going to do? they have another window and in that window it appears that they are beginning to get on the exact same path, claiming that they are going to negegotiate ot another deal with some minor changes by friday. and that is a recipe to be in exactly the same place. >> you also -- you have people like rob portman, a senator from ohio, having to face his governor who comes in to see him and says, you know, don't screw around with my medicaid. >> that's right.
12:13 pm
that's right. and, you know, these guys get off the airplane in their hometown and they run into a mom with a kid who they have been pushing this child in a wheelchair because they have disabilities and that mom gives these senators a piece of their mind, and that happens all the time. and part of the reason that -- part of the reason why i think we are in the situation we are in with people like senator portman and people like senator capito is they can only avoid the camera and constituents for so long, they have put a plank out there that was. a part of repeal and replace that is hurtful to people, it is bad policy, it is bad politics, and now they have to find their way out of it. >> the politics, i don't understand, ezra. on the one hand those states where donald trump was significantly did well in the election have a significant population that benefited from medicaid. you have two different kinds of
12:14 pm
groups opposed in supporting the senate bill and you have people like doctors and hospitals and healthcare providing groups coming out strongly against the senate bill as did patient advocacy groups and the american heart association but business groups, like the chamber of commerce were strongly in support of it. >> welshes it is a huge tax cut for them, right? they are thinking on this for many of the owners and for many of the businesses it is a very, very big tax cut, but you are right the politics of this are very puzzling, so number one, the affordable care act at this point is significantly more popular than donald trump or the republican party or much more popular than any, what we have seen in these republican house bills, we don't have polling on the new house bill, i don't expect it to be great, but it was polling in the low twenties which is abysmal in american politics but medicaid which is the source of most of the -- cuts republicans are making it is a very popular program and popular even among republicans so you are looking at a bill that is really not -- it breaks all of donald trump's promises,
12:15 pm
you can imagine how many ads there will be of him saying everybody will be covered under any plan, deductibles will be lower and replace obama care with something terrific and what they are going to do, what can happen to mitch mcconnell can happen to a lot of republicans, and one other point that is important to say here. republicans promised reappeal and replace obama care but they didn't stop there and they told them what they meant. you are going to get better insurance, you are going to get a insurance that covers more and less deductibles and mcconnell and other senators talked about how obamacare gives you insurance with such high deductibles you can't afford to do it to turn around and create a plans that creates much higher deductible insurance as your core insurance product, that is not fulfilling your promise, it is breaking your promise. so not only are they going counter to the politics on this issue, they are also breaking pretty direct promises on this issue. and, again to go back to our earlier conversation for what? for tax cuts? i mean, the i recognizes the worth something, but is it
12:16 pm
really worth in? >> andy, if you could start from scratch, what would your bill look like in comparison to the affordable care act? >> well, look, i think what is interesting about the last few months and i am thinking in a very positive way, i have been out to about 15 communities around the country talking to ordinary citizens about healthcare and in almost every conversation i have ere, and both sides ask abouts medicare for all, single pair and, payer and so forth, and i don't think six months agony one of us would have realistically said that is a possib conversation and it still may not be but it is coming up more and more, and it is coming up on both sides of the aisle and i think what we are going to see probably are things like we just saw recent recently in nevada where there was a proposition for people to buy into the medicaid program and i think the country is moving in a direction, bubbly a bit to say,
12:17 pm
hey, maybe we should not make it so complicated, maybe we should be in a place are people shouldn't go bankrupt if they get sick, and i don't think that is going to be as controversial as it once was, depending on what happens here. now that is not where our starting point is, our starting point is the aca and i think the good news about that is that there are some fixes that can be done locally and surgically to some of the exchanges, taking medicaid off the table, that could make progress, and i think that is probably the next step,. >> rose: to take medicaid off the table? >> take medicaid cuts off the table. >> rose: right. >> >> i didn't mean medicaid as a negotiating element, yes. >> yes, exactly. >> >> rose: two things, what intrigues me about what andy said, you hear increasing conversations about a single pair system with, or some variation of that that is different than what anything americans would even listen to? >> yes, i agree with andy on this, i think the republicans are going, to if they pass a bill like this make some version
12:18 pm
of a medicare buyin for all, i don't know about replacing the entire system with medicare but a medicare buyin, it is going to come i think pretty quickly, senator mcconnell said to the senate republicans if we don't pass this it is going to be single pair, it won't be obamacare, it is going to be single pair, sean spicer said that, too i think that is wrong where the affordable care act continues i think democrats will more or less -- fix the affordable care act, the make subsidies better and make sure the exchanges are working better but turn to other things like universal prek, making college tuition more affordable and they have other major priorities before they get into a huge the architectural health battle again. >> but if the republicans pass one of these bills and 22 million people are less insured and this massive a cheement of the democratic party being undone, medicaid being cut dramatically over the next decade you will see what happened to the republican party in reverse, restoring what the affordable care act is done will be a central cause of the democratic party but when they
12:19 pm
get back into power all of those moderate democrats not to go to single pair and do this kind of private hybrid system based on what it in romney did in massachusetts they would be completely discredit sod what will happen next time in order to get back the coverage gains you will see democrats come and reate a medicare or medicaid buyin, paid for with subsidies that are financed by tax increases on the rich. you can pass that bill through the 51 vote reconciliation process very quickly, it is a pretty straight tarred and popular bill and they are not going to play around with trying to get republicans supporting it more pause they know that is going to be a fool's errand, so i think if this passes, if they wreck obamacare and what it has done, where this is going to go is not to a world where the rich people get tax cuts and poor people get health insurance they can't afford, nobody wants that, it will go in a more popular direction which has been stopped by nod rats, a single payeresque direction. >> can you see president trump getting on that band wagon?
12:20 pm
>> no, for somebody who created a lot of conflict with the republican party and may a lot of big promises with healthcare he has been utterly submissive to it is republican agenda since winning the presidency, i assume he means it and the people around him persuaded him it is a good idea but there is, despite the fact that in the past he has talked positively of canadian single payer systems and other things he has shown no evidence of wanting to work with democrats or wanting to bid logically -- since winning the white house. >> what do you two differ on? >> ezra? >> i was waiting for andy to go through our deep debates. i guess, let me say this. i will say. this i don't know whether ezra agrees or disagrees with this. but i do think that policy, policy aside, we do need to get away from the point where, as ezra was pointing to, we go change our healthcare system election cycle by election cycle, the real world that we live in, the american families,
12:21 pm
hospitals, physicians, they can't and that. it will not last. >> and i think americans are very scared of the fact that their political identity and their interest in improving the healthcare system have become one thing. and that they have to identify themselves as either a trump supporter or an obama person or some political label and that has to drive how they expect the healthcare system to go. that is not how it should be. and ultimately my perspective and i don't know where ezra comes out on this is, i think the only way we get to bipartisanship is when it fails, if you have both houses if you have the white house, sure, the easiest path is going to be go down and try to get your bill done, if it doesn't work, and this is why we need it to fail, we don't just need to fail because it is bad policy, we need it to fail because we can't afford to see redress election after election and change our healthcare system each time. >> we do differ on something
12:22 pm
actually. >> which is, i don't disagree in principle with what andy is saying, i am much more pessimistic about the prospects for it, i don't think there is any version of this ends with schumer and mcconnell working together, going forward i don't think we will see that either, i think american politics in a way are dangerous and not what i wish they were but are, it is becoming more polarized and these things are becoming really the province of one party or the other. the i would much prefer to see more stability in the system and i don't want to see massive architectural healthcare change happening election to election but i think that is what we are in for a little while, i don't see the underlying factors of polarization changing, i don't see parties find a lot of good in working together, given how things are working out, and i don't see anything right now that makes me thing the underlying trends of the political system are going to change. so if this fails, i think that that will be -- if it fails i think that would be a good thing but i am not optimistic it would lead to some kind of bipartisan process to succeed it, i think republicans are likely to just give up, hope
12:23 pm
obamacare implodes on it own and continue to sabotage it from the sidelines and move on to tax reform. >> rose: the reason that i always thought that the preinsisted on healthcare coming first is because he wanted it to feed his tax reform proposals. >> yeah. that is why they say it is doing that, but you don't need that to happen. i think this always has been the weirdist, weirdest things, paul ryan and mcconnell persuaded president trump they immediated this to happen, that he needed to put healthcare first in order to make the reconciliation rules work for the tax proposals, you don't need to do any of that. they could simply do tax reform that ends after ten years which is what george w. bush did and then increase it as much as you wanted in the ten year window and dare your successors to undo it he at the end of the ten years, most of the tax bush cuts were extended personal in innocently so that is not a failed strategy, so override the reconciliation process, this idea that there is some kind of
12:24 pm
legislative need to do it this way, donald trump sold a bill of goods on this one but there is no real reason for it. debt us twant make sense, if you are you willing to take the political pain of uninsuring 22 million people you can take the political pain of changing the senate rules. >> rose: this is interesting i think we already said this, but the effort to somehow replace obamacare and all of the debate that has come out of that, has made healthcare even more intense a political football than it was before the trump administration began. >> do you agree with that? >> yeah. so i think that is right, and i think we are dealing with the inexperience and maybe a little bit of the indifference of the white house as it came in and believe that with the majority all you needed to do was a couple of golf sessions, not even necessarily real read the bill, and what he learned is of
12:25 pm
course, this is deeply intense and personal and i will put a positive spin on, this if you go out to real america and to people, they are much more educated about healthcare than they were a year ago. they are much more invested, and they are much more active and i don't just say that in an activist way, i say that naah way they actually understand things like what a high risk pool is, more americans know what a cbo score is today than i would venture they, than ever did before so there is, i think, a sense in the real world that i hope over powers things that i do think it had some effect here in the last weak where the politicians recognize that they can't just do a politically expedient job to get something done, that they are living the two, 2016 promise when in 2017 we have many americans who are now saying we are focused on this and as ezra said, we didn't ask you to make healthcare worse and make deductibles higher. you told us you were going to
12:26 pm
make healthcare better and you are not, so that level of engagement is something that i think is a potential real building block for the country. >> rose: at that, thank you so much, andy, great to have you here. easy remarks as always, thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> rose: we will be right back, stay with us. >> rose: architect jacques herzog and entered modern in london in 1995, in 2008, they collaborated with chinese artist ai weiwei to design the beijing national stadium 4 the olympic games. he joined forces with the duo again in 2012 for the serpentine gallery pavel i don't know in london, ai weiwei, an activist is best known for his politically charged exhibitions most recently focusing on the global refugee crisis, all three join me now to talk about their latest collaboration, it is called "hansel & gretel". it is an installation at the park avenue armory in new york that explores the issue of surveillance and public space.
12:27 pm
i am pleased to have them here at this table for the first time. welcome. >> so who do i talk to and who do i ask, how did this cab investigation begin? it is not the first collaboration. but how did this particular collaboration on this particular project begin? >> . i mean the first one, the stadium was initiated by our friendship and visiting each other, so it was willingly and two ports is because we have been asked by curators that wanted to -- that wanted us to collaborate again. in fact, we have been doing many things before that -- >> >> rose: collaborating with artists. >> no, no. also, but we with weiwei's collaboration, with by ear and myself, that is based on especially our own initiative and friendship and willingness to do something together. but of course for the pavilion in london and now the armory, we
12:28 pm
needed someone to give us the job, so we have been asked to do this, so that is two different reasons why we collaborated. >> rose:. >> how does the collaboration work? >> >> it is inspiring, other ways we wouldn't do it. so we share the same readiness to be curators, to be open and to discover things together, so it is an exchange. it is also a challenge with all of each other, so it is questioning yourself but questioning it is other, questioning the topic we are working on. and that is how we make progress in our own lives and in our thinking. >> rose: how do you see it? >> i see it as in today's world we are doing so many things
12:29 pm
together, and an architecture team -- is very, very well-known, he got into art, into practice, which is beyond architecture, and i am an architect myself and also working in a very different field. so for us, it is very, very natural act. >> rose: is it about an aesthetic or an idea? >> it is about both. it is about concept julyly we believe, concept july he. >> conceptually. >> it is creativity, and to explore the idea of what is, how to be creative, and then there is a lot of ideas in relating to that. >> when you talk about what you
12:30 pm
are doing at the armory and we will see a video of that in just a moment, did they come to you and say w we want you to do something? just do what they want you to do? >> they have a program every year, they have enlightened artists to use the drill hole to do an installation. >> rose: they give you a blank canvas to work on? >> basically, yes. >> well, it was not that we said surveillance is our topic. we started with -- we started with nothing, as always. as pierre and weiwei tries to explain, really, when we do something, why do we work together? it is because really we want to have -- to start from scratch, so not knowing what he would do or pierre would do independent he, and in this case we had this huge empty space and that was the start. we said, that is our potential. it is very extraordinary set of space in the, in the center of such a city and we at the
12:31 pm
beginning we have this kind of spontaneous idea together this is a place for everybody, a park, kind of a park where you should pet lost. where you should lose yourself. and this was the beginning, and then when w we were further thinking about people moving in there freely and that cameras would follow, and we would trace the paths, and that is how step-by-step different elements came together and filled up literally this space, made it a mental space, a surveillance space, a psychological space, whatever, you know, we could not discern it afterwards, but it is not that it started with a title or with the idea of surveillance, but those things came in after. >> rose: and where did the title "hansel & gretel" come from? >> this came in much later, the title, because somehow this kind
12:32 pm
of traces that you project, is mindful of the fairy tale we all know and it is a brutal story, and of course the installation has something scary and menacing and has this side of the dark forest and darkness and getting lost, so it is normal that somehow this fairy tale is being associated with it but it could also be another title. it is just something that adds to the complexity of the space. >> rose: what do you want people who go through this to come away with? >> >> rose: what should they feel? >> we want people to have -- to gain a total new experience when they go through this huge, dark condition. this architecture has a very special character, and it is such an important geographic location for the city. so people will rediscover where
12:33 pm
they are, in what kind of relationship they are in this space, and that they will be surprised or to even hesitant to see what is going on, and sometimes you get confused. sometimes you discover some very a playful, interesting possibilities, which is a normal experience, i should say, and the images and the kind of seductive movement you gain from it, and then a it transform into another location, which you define your image being -- or unnoticed recorded and also you can discover that a kind of surprise. but the image itself is so fresh
12:34 pm
and interesting, and even as a modern person in the city, especially in the western cities, now in china the same, you are hundred times recorded by surveillance in life. so -- but actually going through it and to experience it and to have images print out is a total, very new. >> rose: awakening to them? all art is informed by personal experiences but is your perspective on this informed by your own experiences? >> yes, also associated with my experience, because i have been living under surveillance for the past ten years, also, and a few thousand civilian cameras around my house and, you know, my phone is tapped, and
12:35 pm
computer, being aware. >> rose: how does it change you? >> it makes you feel you have such a special connection to all of existen, you know, the power is watching, and they always want to get more out from you, and, you know -- >> rose: is the negligent here, though, in the modern -- society there is too much surveillance or is it simply to examine a sense of how we feel about it and how it changes or affects us? >> well, we cannot change this. i think that art and architecture cannot really change the world, but. >> it can start a conversation? >> yes, and it makes people aware, and i think this installation should do several things. it should not be a moral lesson or so, be careful but it should be entertaining and playful, but also a deep experience or a deep
12:36 pm
-- yes, perception or better understanding of their normal condition, but it also, as we discussed earlier, this morning, it also contains an element which is quite interesting, that people are increasingly surveillanced by public cameras, et cetera but they do that on themselves also. they increase that with the use of mobile phones and public media and social media and that's -- that element is also part of the installation with the way we just explained, with the cameras that camps people, and people are really eager to go and discover themselves, so it is not that they feel menaced by that, but it is also a kind of a strange pleasure or a strange satisfaction. >> rose: i mean if you walked down the street, the idea of freebies has replaced the idea of autographs. >> yes. >> rose: people want a photograph. they want -- they want to be surveilled by
12:37 pm
themselves in part, you know,. there is no harmful effects to that but -- >> it is very complex and very sign local -- psychological. i think that, even on top of surveillance, that the psychological component of space and architecture is interesting. normally it is disconnected from architecture and only the fact that this is an art installation allows for this component to be so powerful, i think, in this case. >> rose: did i hear you suggesting, either of you, that there is no solution to this? this is simply a modern fact of life? >> yes. i think so, yes. >> rose: to understand the impact -- >> we have to understand the impact and live it and i think this is a possibility to live it in the present, to be there exposed to all of that, and from the beginning we wanted to involve people directly, also to have them as actors and not only as perceivers but to really be there, to go there, and to be
12:38 pm
exposed to all of this, and of course we always were questioning ourselves, you know, balance out of it and how, what is the outcome and we don't know, and also when we start a project we don't know what is the outcome, whether it is architectural or whether it is an artistic project and to understand whether it is menacing -- >> whether it is menacing or a joyful thing, we leave that open. >> rose: take a look at this. just so you will have a small understanding. this is a video of "hansel & gretel", installation at the armory here in new york city. there is no audio so we will talk over it. here it is. >> pelle are coming into this very dark space, and then they discover, since they move that their steps are being traced, tracked, and then people start to behave the way they like, and
12:39 pm
for us in an unexpected way we thought they would just walk but some lie down on the ground and start dancing and form groups and they are performing, they are freely discovering the potential, of the technology and looking at what it does since they move on. >> it is not an answer, but when we observe people at the beginning, you don't quite know what it is, you know, so you are like afraid. you are unsecure, and the more and more you get in, you get accustomed, and you get freer, so you give up something to act, whether it is against or something just you do for yourself or with people you are in the space. thathat i think is quite interesting to see this shift of this difference, of this change this behavior. >> rose: take a look. this is a birds nest image of
12:40 pm
the pavel i don't know that was there, pavilion that was there for the olympics in beijing, tell me about the collaboration on this .. how did it work? >> that was an invitation for -- it is part of a competition. >> rose: part of a competition? >> yes. for the national stadium. >> rose: symbol of the olympics. >> yes. that is probably the first or only time they completely let the western superstar architecture firm to be presented in complete activities, this foreign jury, which is very rare in china. think often either hire architects but not with the foreign jury. so -- >> rose: so they have a
12:41 pm
foreign jury -- >> yes, that means they are determined to have some real western standard type of values or architecture practice. so that's a first for china and interesting in this project, and i was contacted by a friend, a common friends of us, who was an ambassador from switzerland to china. so we started to agree on collaboration, so i act more like a consultant, introduced him to chinese, chinese culture or chinese modern politics. it is very different in china than switzerland.
12:42 pm
>> this is not quite right. weiwei is a great artist, a great trend, but as great architect. >> rose: right. >> it is not that he says, hey, why don't you do this a little bit more green or a little bit more blue, but he has a deep knowledge of space and structure and that was really a serious collaboration, and always when we do something, it is real, and it is really -- you know, he has done a studio that was demolished in shanghai was perhaps his masterpiece, it was really a great piece of architecture and very few architects can do such quality architecture, so that was, of course we are, our architectural office has a big infrastructure and took the project on board, et cetera, but weiwei, he is and was very important in this project and hopefully we on the other side are also very much involved the way he sees it in
12:43 pm
projects which are seemingly not our homeland, you know, which is art, so i think that is really the strange and new and also really interesting thing in that kind of cab investigation, collaborations today that sounds good but i think almost it over does it really in that he really leaves his own territory and -- because it is really not easy to let it go and to see what happens, you know, and that is exactly what the three of us tried to do. >> what we agreed on from the beginning, i think there was like this same approach to it, we didn't see this as an olympic stadium, so the client of course is the ioc so the international olympic committee group was the client and asked for a stadium
12:44 pm
for athletics for everything which takes place during the olympics. and of course we had to achieve that. and the chinese they are very smart, understanding that the previous olympic stadiums, they were very difficult to maintain after the three weeks of the olympics, so you don't just do such a stadium, such a huge infrastructure for hundreds of thousands of people just for three weeks, maybe paralympics and two weeks more but then the stadium just stands there, and has no function. and we thought that is not just olympic use and post olympic use, the post olympic use should be for the people and this is where we understood what the stadium could be, which is an infrastructure, a structure for the people themselves, and that is what is also happening now, having many, many, many thousands of visitors every
12:45 pm
year. >> like a park. >> it is a park. >> rose: yes exactly so you see it as -- as a public place. >> the olympics, they were almost lake a list to do something, which is just a trojan horse to do an infrastructure for the games, but then it became something for the public. >> rose: in the future. >> and the future. >> rose: are you -- can you go back to china now? >> i think i can, but still not -- i think i can. >> rose: will you? >> i could. too, my lawyer is still in jail and i feel for my friends still in detention, but i am considering myself quite lucky in that kind of -- >> rose: they wouldn't let you come back for a while, would
12:46 pm
they? >> they said they would allow me to go back. >> rose: oh, they did? >> yes. >> rose: might you collaborate on something else? >> yes. i hope so. >> we have no plans, but we really also today was a tough day with so much press and interviews, and we enjoyed -- it was funny and when we talk, we learn from each other, strangely, that was not planned i mean that is how i think we all saw it. >> can you give me an example of that? >> well, not really, because i made some obscene remark, which was in that moment i think quite right and they were all laughing and joking and -- but somehow it was typical for the way we are together, and that somehow we enjoy that, you know, also when we go out for dinner and it is really a mixture of all of these
12:47 pm
things, we start with politics and we start with this, and it is difficult to explain, but that probably makes us want to continue to do something, but it has also to make sense, because he is so busy, we are very busy, and it should be something that we couldn't do otherwise. >> rose: talk about some other things you have done. this is a serpentine gallery in london. this is a collaboration again, so take a look at that and you can see it. there it is. just describe this. what am i looking at? >> serpentine gallery are a kind of routine practice for the london institutio, and many, many architects have been building this kind of temporary buildings, and this program i think is still continuous, so we
12:48 pm
are very -- this is trying to make us the understand the nature of this kind of project. >> it is clear architecture practice, at the same time with a strong culture inference and so it is perfect for us to work out, because we have to start from a zero, we always have, every project we do we start from zero, no matter how experienced they are, and how strongly of a opinion i could have, we start from zero, this is always the foundation for projects. that's why we enjoy it so much, we become like a child. we don't do that in many -- in our professions, it does not allow us to do that often, but this is -- we always share this kind of experience. it is hike we have a vacation somehow, you know, spiritually.
12:49 pm
>> rose: you found your playmates? >> yes. i did. that is true. we take a paper, we start to make a very basic understanding, always fundamental understanding, philosophically about what architecture, the foundation and what has been there, what could be the many possibilities to create something for people to enjoy. >> rose: let me -- this is -- i just want everybody to see it since it is your first time here. this is a tape, completed in 2000 and you will see the extension, which was completed in 2016. there you go. what a great, one of the great museums in the world. what should we add to that? >> first of all there is no -- >> the way weiwei explains is also something that is very typical for him but also for the way pierre and i have working, because we are also in a
12:50 pm
collaboration, collaborative project, a biography. >> rose: since you were seven. >> yes, since we went to school, we have been friends and we started to do things together. never with a plan to ever do a job together, so that was not the plan, but we just did things, and so you like -- you start to share -- three of us and two of us have totally different characters but you learn to use them, that difference as a quality and not as a difference you want to highlight, and -- but you use the differences as an energy, as an asset. the same is with the building you show, the tape, which is an existing structure which has had so much power in itself, and we conceive the transformation of
12:51 pm
that building as something where we first use this energy before we change anything, you know, it is a huge kind of castle of -- >> rose: take a look at this. this is a tape of an extension completed in 2016. here it is. just because -- there you go. >> see it is amazing that this and the previous is from the same architects. >> yes but this is one in the filled -- >> rose: but even that, not the one on the right -- >> it has a strange form, which is resulting from the geometries given by the form of the street. >> rose: right. >> and its anchor or it sits on top of oil tanks, which were hidden in the ground, so that also is starting from something existing and morphs up into this strange form, which has a rationale. it is not a mood that makes us do this form, but this one picture, sorry, cannot
12:52 pm
explain it, because one important picture or image is missing is the turbine itself, so it is, again, it is a covered space for people, so it is like an extension of a city, of a public space in the city extending into a building and there we are like come back to the real home, come back to this olympic stadium in beijing and imitate modern. we really had this for the first time, this really very strong and huge public space where people go, maybe you even to there and not having the idea to go to the museum, you just go there because you feel like this is a place where i should go. i want to go. >> rose: i want them so these this last picture of the concert hall in hamburg, germany, look at this just so you have a -- wow. pierre, explain this. >> yes. but this also, if you see you have the brick building
12:53 pm
which is an existing warehouse, and on top of it we built the glass building with a philharmonic hall and inbetween you see a slot and this is also a public space. this is a place for everyone. it is not just a building for the opera 10,000 or few thousand which go and enjoy the music but everyone, ever can go there and from there you have an incredible view on the whole urban area of hamburg. >> rose: it is great to meet you. thank you for coming. an honor. >> same here. >> rose: pleasure. thank you for coming. we have been trying to get you here at this table for a while. so i am honored you have come on this occasion. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. >> for more about this program and early episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. >>
12:54 pm
captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> on the next charlie rose a conversation with former deputy secretary of state bill burns. join us. >> i think the two sort of most imminent problems are first north korea, where the north korean regime is making steady progress toward having a missile you put a nuclear warhead on and strike the continental u.s. and an increase danger of a collision with iran, you know, as you look attentions in the
12:55 pm
gulf. but i think there are a lot of deeper problems too, you know,, this is one of those big periods of transformation on the international landscape, sort of like 1945 was, 1989 was at the end of the cold war, and a lot of things are in flux, and so american leadership becomes critically important and there is a lot of uncertainty i think about the nature of american leadership. >> rose: and the interesting thing about it from my perspective as a student, it is an opportunity -- it is a time for opportunity. >> it is. >> rose: or a loss. >> it is. it is an opportunity with the united states still as the preempt innocent player in the world to help adapt institutions and alliances and shape that landscape before it gets shaped for us, you know, ten, 20, 30 years down the road. so i think there is no substitute for that kind of american leadership. >> rose: do you worry we today are shunning that role? >> i think we are leaving too much uncertainty in people's minds. you know, there is too much unpredictability and people have gotten accustomed, whether they liked or they disliked particular american policies they are accustomed to the
12:56 pm
united states trying to make sense of all of these changes on the landscape and trying to mobilize coal hiss of countries to deal with them. so that's why when the united states pulls out of the paris client agreement, it leaves a hole there, which is difficult for other players right now to fill. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following. bank of america. life better connected. >> >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're watchi
12:57 pm
12:58 pm
12:59 pm
1:00 pm
announcer: a kqed television production. ♪

7 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on