>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> global warming and its effects made headlines.

a new united nations report outlines a global threat to health, economic prosperity, food, and water. the chairman of the panel said nobody on this planet will be untouched by impact and climate change. a growing scientific consensus suggests they are not a problem for the future. they are this already. michael mann is a professor at penn state university. here in new york, jeffrey sachs is director of the earth institute at columbia university. also, michael oppenheimer. a professor at princeton and one of the main authors of the

study. i am pleased to have all of them here. i said to jeffrey when he sat down it is worse than we thought and he said, you can be sure that is true. the piece that says guys ice caps are melting, ice waves and heavy rain are intensifying. species are going extinct. oceans are becoming more acidic in the observed co2. organic matter is melting frozen in soils. what is going on? >> what is going on in fact is in a way somewhat predictable because in the science community, these facts have been known for at least a couple of decades.

it has been true that the more refined the measurements, the more careful the observation. the more the risks have been confirmed. as the world economy has continued to grow, even though we see it crisis, china is continuing to grow rapidly using more and more energy. the pace of human induced climate change. the pace of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere has gone up. when you look at the trajectory not only are the impacts evident already among not only is the direction risky, but we are on a trajectory for the 21st century that if we do not change course, it is absolutely reckless, mind-boggling and how reckless it is and yet you cannot seem to get off that cap yet. >> there are two new facts that are notable. one is the observation that we can now tie a decrease in crop yields in much of the world to climate change. that is new. we might have expected it in the past but the new studies suggest we have seen it already. there were far more places where crop yields had decreased due to climate changes them places they have increased. >> good potential future consequences are immense.

usually we have to expect an increase in crop yields. about 10% or 15% per decade just to keep up with population growth. with a gradual change in lifestyles where they are adopting our semi-gluttonous eating habits where they getaway from grains and eat the stuff higher on the food chain. you have to keep up by increasing crop yields. what is happening now is that it has leveled out. we are threatening to fall behind. people will fall through the cracks and you will have more malnutrition and more starvation. >> what would you add? >> this is a good example of how uncertainty does not weigh in our favor. sometimes you hear the argument that there is uncertainty about the science. why should we act to reduce our emissions? here is an example where previous example, there was

gains in agricultural yields. because of mid-latitude regions, regions at higher latitudes with warmer summers, longer growing seasons, you might imagine you could see increased agricultural yields. one of the things we have seen over the past few years is those sorts of gains can be offset by withering drought like what we withering drought like what we have seen in recent summers, by extreme weather, and this report, the latest report concludes that we can see and impact of this extreme weather in terms of losses with regard to agriculture to my impacts on human health. here is an example of where there is uncertainty but it turns out the uncertainty is resolving itself in terms of the problem being worse than we thought. not better. >> not surprising in one sense that our systems, the way we grow food and the seeds that we use in the methods we use for planting are based on a given

climate pattern and is changing. many places where i have been working in the last 10 or 15 years, this is startling even before the report. this is fairly dry places. higher temperatures meaning that the soils dry out because there is more evaporation taking place. what i would stress even beyond the very dire superb report, i think it is excellent in every way, the capacity of our society to address this is actually less than the report suggests because the report talks about the potential for resilience. i see before my eyes every day the potential for collapse. >> what has collapsed, i was right with you when you are

saying, i asked you to respond to this. >> sometimes economists, my own tribe, say well it is about shock. but we are creative and resilient and we will adapt. sometimes you do not get adaptation. you get collapse. even from a relatively modest shock. if you take it as an analogy because these are how complex systems work. when lehman failed, you could say that is a bank going under. all of a sudden the whole world economy was in deep crisis. when you have a drought you can say we will ring in a little food aid. the drug can turn to conflict area and all of a sudden you have a massive amplification of problems rather than adaptation. this i think is a big risk. many economists and others say it is bad but we will find a way.

we also may find a way to disaster sooner than we find a way to solutions. >> let me -- those are very good points. in new york city during hurricane sandy, which was not caused by global warming although it may have been exacerbated by global warming, we saw that phenomena of network failure which happens globally now. what happened in new york city, the electricity went down so the emergency services went down. the subway went down. we had people stuck on the 12th floor of public housing and a lot of people in housing -- hospitals who had to be carried out. that is one of the conditions of this report. we fell way behind in our ability to cope with that tragedy. this is a city where the mayor had spent years setting up committees to study this phenomenon.

global warming, had we prepared for it and despite all that thinking about preparation, we had not done nearly enough. we had not done some relatively simple and cheap things like raise the subway gratings from the street level to keep them from being flooded. like taking substations out of sitting near the rivers. we did not see the easy things. >> that is a no-brainer. we do not do the no-brainers. >> are we planning not to do it because of what we witnessed during hurricane sandy? >> we have a new mayor. we do not know what he's going to do. we would like to see that. >> let me add a point here. this is an excellent example. hurricane sandy or superstorm sandy, depending on what you want to call it. i would differ with michael a little bit. we can say with some confidence that climate change absolutely did worsen certain impact.

that 13 foot record surge at battery park. one foot of that was due to global sea levels. we can say that with confidence. now that event cost is $65 billion is the current estimate. while there has been a lot of emphasis on the threat to food, fresh water, land, there is also a very real threat that we are already seeing to our economy. climate change and extreme weather that may be linked to climate change. damages from that amount to something like $1 billion in global domestic product a year already. that is projected to increase greatly in the future if we continue the course we are on. >> it leads to the possibility

of conflict over land or circumstances produced by the scarcity. quick sometimes it is just unbelievable. maybe it is believable but sometimes it is odd how these things play out. i happen to be for the u.n. in brazil at the beginning of last week. brazil has a major drought right now. the kind of disturbance one expects with more frequency and this one could be an example of that. the water level in the reservoirs is down to something like 15% of where it should be. real crisis. with everybody sounding the alarm, nothing like that. they have the world cup coming up and they have elections. the politicians are terrified even to mention any change of behavior, any change of reaction, any response. the people in the know are just sitting there. are we really going to go right over the cliff without government doing anything? one of the fundamental problems is our political systems are completely missed timed with these crises.

we need leaders were going to lead on this. >> this is one that people feel disempowered about. they cannot imagine solving the problem themselves. we need leaders who are going to get out there and actually lead. we are seeing some of that from the obama administration but in the u.s. the congress is fairly helpless. >> there are some voices when the then the conservative side of our politics. like bob inglis. who are coming forward and saying we can have a debate about what policies to put in place to do with this problem. he advocates for conservative free-market-based approaches to pricing carbon. that is great. we can have that debate. what we cannot continue to debate is whether the problem exists. whether the risk exists. what this latest report tells us is this is not some far off future potential problem. this is something that is hitting us now and it is going to get a lot worse. >> you are much closer to this than i am. even some people who are climate deniers because they're hung about the man-made aspect of it are looking at the consequences. they're looking at what is happening in the arctic.

something is going on. >> every time one of these reports comes out you convince a few more people who are dyed in the wool opponents. there is a hard-core who will never see this and there are complex reasons. some people like to stand away from the crowd. the point is you cannot wait for everybody to agree. the climate change that we are experiencing now is essentially baked in. we cannot do much about what will happen no a matter what we do on emissions. if we do not act now when reducing emissions a lot, we are going -- there's going to be hell to pay for the next generation. this is our kids we are talking about. >> beyond leadership which is

important what else has to happen to create the kind of urgency and fear that is a call to action? >> in addition to fear we need to hear more solutions. and that we also have not heard enough of. so fear can open the eyes for at least a moment but it can also get people to tune down or tune out sometimes. what i think would be really necessary and when i said about the u.s. government i hope, i would love to see some clear leadership about the things to do. actually, there are a lot of specific things that would make a huge difference. different ways to produce energy is number one on the list. we have vast potential in the u.s. for alternative energy sources. not just the hydrofracking. but wind power, solar power, low carbon energy. we have -- >> are they price competitive?

>> they are close in some places but even now with a little bit of technology investment and learning curves, they will be. >> my university just installed a raft of solar photovoltaic panels. in new jersey at this time given all the circumstances it was the cheapest energy to buy at the margin. >> those examples exist. >> and price competitive depends on what one means. if it means energy disaster. >> i do know what you mean. market terms right now. the answer is close but they will become not only closer but in certain niches, the lowest costs sources if we work and it just a little bit. the u.s. government put forward -- has never put forward an energy strategy. this is kind of remarkable. we do not have a scenario. >> that is what they used to say when dick cheney was vice president. because of his own energy.

they still say that. even now after six years there is no energy strategy. >> there is none. what we need right now is an energy strategy that takes into account the realities of today's report. which says we need to keep the temperature increase below a one more degree rise from today or two degrees centigrade rise compared to the preindustrial period. we cannot be emitting carbon dioxide at the rate we are doing and therefore, all of the major

economies in the world need to change course. if our government said, ok, how can this be done? and if china and european union and others said, how can this be done, we would actually realize there are a lot of ways this can be done but we need a strategy. and i bring this to the american people. >> i was struck by your previous guest on he was talking about the marketplace. the u.s. is leading the world with respect to robotics technology. how is it we can lead the world in high-tech areas like robotics and some of the other areas of technology and be falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to renewable energy, because china and india and other developing nations are looming ahead of us in terms of the infrastructure and the investment they're putting into renewable energy. they understand that the economy in the next century will be a clean energy economy and we are falling behind. we can move ahead. we can become competitive but we need the support from our leaders. >> we need something done along those lines. the politics are just poison in this country right now. that is hard to do. it may be that china will save the world. china has taken over the solar

photovoltaic market. they have taken over the wind turbine market. the price has fallen to a level i could not imagine. if you want to install solar cells on your proof, the major cost is not the cells created is the permits, getting the installers, pouring the struts and that means we made immense progress technologically. >> let me make sure you understand you about this idea. the idea was for a while that india and china were saying do not judges by the same metric because you have had your industrialization and we have not. so therefore we should be held to a different standard. is that argument no longer articulated by them because they realize the consequences of the pollution? >> they still use the same argument. they are looking to their own

behavior. china has a terrific exposure to climate change and the government knows it. china has this terrible air pollution problem. i think that over the long-term they're looking for ways to get out from under the heavy coal dependency have. >> it could be an intermediate source would be natural gas. they have a lot of it deep. other countries, i was thinking about it, we wish the u.s. would grab the leadership because the u.s. alone has the political clout and the resources to make this transition happen quickly. >> and to develop an international agreement that would move forward? >> looking for a strong international agreement with binding limits is not going to happen soon. there will be some progress in paris in 2015 but the solution to this problem for the time being will come from bilateral agreements, more multilateral agreements. we have 180 countries in the room which is what the negotiations had.

it is time to make progress. >> i am not quite at that point. i think what is important to know is that since the world has failed repeatedly to find an agreement, a few years ago they said this time we have got to do it with the date. paris, december 2015. there is a rendezvous right now that is on the calendar. whether we reach a series -- serious agreement is an open question. there will be a global summit of heads of state at the united nations that is prepatory in trying to reach a major agreement in december of 2015. assembly.

>> reason i hope that michael is wrong although he is right about so many things. i do not believe that a piecemeal approach can have the deep transformative effect that we need in the world. the truth is we are on a trajectory as this report makes clear. that blows the world out of the water. maybe afford to grade -- four degree centigrade rise compared to where we are at the end of the century. every red light is flashing on food supply on safety, on storms. this is a disaster, the current trajectory. when you look at the time that we have to get this right, it is extremely short because as michael said, the infrastructure, how we produce energy, how we drive cars, how we build holdings and how we

heat and cool buildings and so forth takes decades to change course. so we are just at the end of being able to hold to the level that the world promised itself. i would say the number 2015 is the last chance to keep that two degree margin -- centigrade limit. if we listen -- mission in december next year and we are talking about something beyond anything safe. and we are talking about horrible damages but how horrible? >> we said the same thing when we came to copenhagen. we need a plan b. you should not put all our eggs in one basket. >> if you miss the exit ramp you do not just continue down the highway for 150 miles. you take the next exit ramp. when you miss the 400 ppm exit, we are basically there and we go for 450. if we miss it we take the next exit. it is a steeper road. the further we go down that road the more we commit to in terms of as jeff said, truly dangerous and potentially irreversible impact on the planet. >> when he came to washington in 2008, and did he not listed as one of his primary objectives the on education and other things? >> he did.

he put everything into a piece of legislation in 2009. the cap and trade. i thought it was not an adequate approach at the time. it did not go far enough. it was very insider-play. it was all very political transactional. we will give you a little bit here and there. we had a several hour briefing about how they would do this. it seemed to me outlandish. when i suggested in 2009 with no discernible effect, let's be competitive and that takes us out 20 or 30 or 40 years to show

the american people what this is about. it went deeply technocratic. this cap and trade. no one understood it accept our energy bills would go up. there was a very unfortunate however one judges it, outcome. that effort collapsed and with the loss of the house in 2010, this has been off the front burner since then. now the administration is waking up. secretary kerry has made a lifetime of his political career saying this is important. he is right about it. they know him and they're trying to bring it forward. it is awfully late in the day but they should make that extra push. i am waiting for the u.s. government to say here is our plan. they have not shown us yet. >> what they have done is it has been unprecedented on this

issue. not just to do climate change for a day and forget about it. they had a week or two weeks were the president will make a speech and john kerry will make a speech. that is the way you have to do things. this is a serious big-time political issue. you have to get the public attention and stay there.. they are pushing those. there is some indication that they will stay the course on this. they are pushing those and that is a good start. what happens when the administration runs out of all its authority or it gets to 2016 and the new administration comes in. what do we do then? we need leaders continuing in congress to realize this is important as national defense. it is national defense. >> emission standards are one thing. i'm told that in china, someone who recently visited with the

president there, he said to him, this friend of mine, there are two problems that i face. the issue of corruption and second pollution. those are the two things i have to deal with. in order to be able to have the kind of growth that i think is essential. >> this is correct. interestingly, there are two ways to deal with pollution. pollution is the first order politics. you cannot breathe the air. it is absolutely horrible. there are two ways to deal with it. one is the deep way which is we are going to get out of coal. or we are going to use: it clearly different technology. there is a trajectory. they're going for nuclear. they have plenty of

alternatives. energy efficiency can play a big role. the alternative is to say we will move our industry out to the far west away from the people but continue to use the coal. even another technology which is to gassify the coal. you turn coal into gas that can burn cleaner. it ends up committing even more climate changing carbon dioxide. they have uses to address the pollution that will not solve the climate problem or to address the pollution in ways that also solve the problem. >> air pollution problem -- we are doing both. >> i think what is interesting

when you look at china, you can say the glass is half-empty or half-full. china -- the chinese government is having a serious discussion about instituting a carbon tax. the chinese government is recognizing the degradation damages that the emission of carbon is doing. it has to be taken into account. into viable energy strategy. they are ahead of us because we have the house of representatives which has a science committee. politicians who reject the notion of climate change even existing. we have got to move past that. >> thank you very much. be right back. ♪

>> every two years the whitney museum of american art asks this question. what is contemporary art now? it includes paintings, sculpture, photography, film, dance, and performance. it will be the last biennial to take place before moves to its new downtown location. here's is a look at this year's exhibition. >> ♪

♪ this year they took the unusual step of inviting three curators from outside the museum to organize the biennial. joining me now are two of the curators. and the chief curator of media and performance art at the museum of modern art. also joining me and two artists, zoe leonard. she transformed a section of the gallery into a giant camera obscura. i am pleased to have all of them here at this table. welcome. it is a pleasure.

here is the calendar. the significance of this being the last biennial at madison avenue. what is that, what is significant as it affects the biennial? >> the patterns on the cover are ribbing from the building. almost every artist was intrigued about what it meant to be leaving this landmark building before the whitney goes downtown. there are several projects that respond rightly to the architecture. several artists who wanted to give the building a voice. generally the desire to engage

with the building but not necessarily treat this as a kind of funeral for the whitney but to suggest there will be a future for this building and the whitney itself. >> what is contemporary art in the united states, do we come away with an answer to that? >> no. and you will not in future biennials. why do we ask the question? >> it is good exercise in terms >> it is good exercise in terms of measuring the health of contemporary art. i often thought of my role as curator as more of a cartographer trying to map what is contemporary art. there is no such thing. there is no such thing as contemporary art. it is a fiction in the mind of everybody at this table. everybody who has a buy in. it is a fantasy of how they are participating. what i am doing is mapping the best i can in terms of looking at our work and artists, there

are is some interesting themes that we hit on. this is the result, the critical pushback that the biennial gets. everybody has their idea of what contemporary art should be. one envisions themselves and part of that narrative. if there is a context they are pushing at, there is profound disappointment. and kind of a critical rancor that comes with the biennial. >> art has been changing for a long time. some years have prioritized conceptual work and more video work. there are a lot of women making very strong paintings. >> that is a real influence. what does it mean for an artist? >> it is a very overwhelming experience. working in the company of such great minds and talent.

>> same thing? >> it is a huge honor to have a voice on that level and to be in the company of all these other really incredible makers. i guess my feeling is maybe a little bit more ambivalent about it. their biennials are, they set out to do this thing that cannot be done. as much as i am happy to be part of it and have a chance to participate, you sort of realize that there are -- i am aware of other artists that are equally

talented. >> there are 103 participating. >> there are so many great artists in the show. i think this group of artists is very -- it shows a certain kind of multiplicity. there are a lot of artists working across media. this biennial shows the range of making and how writing and performance is part of it and many artists who might be grounded in one medium are working across several mediums. there is an interdisciplinary approach. i think that is present and maybe it arrives at a kind of wisdom, but as an artist, i have a ton of friends that are fantastic artists that are not in the show and i wish they all could be. >> let me talk about women and what you want to do on the floor. >> what we should say is this

exhibition for the 77th biennial is such that each curator gets a floor. that was important to use that's -- space and use that space and look at that large scale painting. also juxtaposing that painting with what we would call craft-based work. work that is located [inaudible] some artists comes to mind. and starting to look at the object of painting itself. >> tell me what that represents? >> these are large basins.

these are extraordinary. what you see in these basins are the failures of past ceramic work tossed into these large vessels. in terms of this is the beginning of things, in terms of thinking about the itself and self or clay. it is not even ceramics at this point. it is pre-ceramics. >> the next one is joel. >> his curtains. joel is about working with his hands. he is based in los angeles and he has been living with hiv for many years and these are glorious thanks. the idea that he can work with his hands and create these kind of beautiful spectacles in celebration of life and materiality. >> the next final one is sheila hicks. tell me about that. >> she was at yale working with albers in the 1950's.

she moved from painting, the language of authority, to fiber. something associated with women's work. now we can see this work and brought into a bigger conversation in terms of what we can call contemporary art. >> and donna nelson. >> both sides of the pending. the back side of the painting are like the backside of the bra strap. there is materiality and paint

stains on both sides. she has an assistant working on this to have this kind of back-and-forth. really performative. >> you were in london for 10 years. >> 13 years. >> has that changed the way you think about contemporary art? >> whitney is one of the museums i grew up going to. it has changed dramatically. new york is no longer the center. >> london. >> there are many small cities like glasgow. >> let's talk about some of these images. >> i first came to her through her writing. she had been making paintings before she began writing. what is remarkable about her work is she writes through her painting and she paints her words. she is inverting the logic about how they work. julia alt had an exhibition of -- it was at the height of the culture wars. it tries to reimagine a different history or different

trajectory. this is an interesting collected from brooklyn. this is a project that goes deep into the research around the collection of pre-century outsider art. what is happening to digital data is it becomes object. there is a 3-d printed scan. this is about how we [inaudible]

the divide between digital and what is real these are two artists living in los angeles. this is a project called relationship. they're both transgender. one is transitioning from female to male and the other from male to female. it is a powerful statement about the culture a lot of people do not understand. and there is an interesting project at the moment. around looking at trans people and trying to create positive images of them. >> tell me about how this idea came to be. >> really interesting taking up this phenomenon and using it as a way to think about how we look and how we see and how we perceive the world. i think this sort of very simple gesture of putting the lens in the room and having an image, and backwards and upside down makes us reconsider everything about how we perceive the world. we have a sense of wonder about something that we just saw outside and took for granted. and then re-see it and it opens

a set of questions. >> explain how the camera obscura works. >> it is a naturally occurring phenomenon. through a small opening in a dark space, light moves in and carries it into the outside world. it is a natural phenomenon. that is because light moves in a straight line. this guy ends up on the floor and the floor and up on the ceiling. it is actually a very simple phenomenon that has been observed since prehistory. what i am interested in is how that phenomenon can be employed right now in a contemporary setting. that this kind of -- it gives us a space and a time to think about how we look and how we perceive. for me i think we're looking not only as an optical process but something that is temporal and spatial and social.

how we see things has to do with who we are and our perspective on the world. having a space where you can slow down and not only look but think about how you are looking. not just what you're looking at but how your own process, how your own vision is changing, how things you assume are not quite the way you thought they are. so it becomes a kind of social space where you are not only a witness but you are an actor. you are present in the room with other people so it is a social space to look at other people looking. so for me it also asks questions that to the rest of the show and to the building to the situation you're in. it is a space that is neither a black box nor -- it is not a neutral space.

it is not escapist. it is a space to be present and to think about what you're looking at, how you are looking at it, how you are saying and how we relate to what we see and what -- all those associations. >> it is truly a combination. it makes you rethink where you are. >> there is that window from the outside.

the room almost looks like a box camera. the window actually juts out from the building and is canted to the northwest across the grid of the city. i feel like his architecture is so specific and maybe this ties back to some of the things we were talking about with what this biennial means in this building. it is not just that for many of us, i grew up in the city and i love that building. it is a place i learned about art. broyer brought a set of modernist ideals into that building. he wrote beautifully about why he designed it the way he did, he -- how he oriented it toward avenue, the majesty and seriousness of the building, the height of this distinct concrete

gridded ceiling. and it is a building with some is history. these are walls that trisha brown has walked on. some of her dancers have walked down the side of that building. bob erwin did the scrim veil. we have associations only with shows we have seen there but how artists have used the fabric of this building. it is very embedded in that space. >> you grew up in south carolina. >> yes. >> what brought you to art? >> a very good question.

my mother. that sunday school, i drew jesus the best. that was my encouraging platform. it was my relationship with my mother. she has been homebound for 16 years. i grew up watching her make schematic diagrams of common objects. she would tell me that they the purpose of them were patents for the home shopping network and qvc. i found that to be very braggable at school. my mom is the next suzanne somers. she will be so rich. i do not pick it was true. she may have been sending those out to the companies but i do not think anything manifested. living with her creative spirit in the living room made me want to draw so i could help her. eventually, i deviated from helping her and making my own kind of paintings and drawings. and went to boarding school for painting and full circle.

as i got devastated with western painting's ideology and felt like my own personal ideology was more interesting. i wanted to take her archive, my personal archives from a family footage and use it as a very private observational art making tool. that is when i began using my body. the body was the central subject that had nothing to do with the public. which was art history and institutions. it was a way to find an agency as a creator. eventually after a lot of failure, that is important, i traced -- i began figuring out ways to construct my mother's drawings. her schematic drawings into a performance arena in 3-d animation. the same tool they used to make "toy story" and "avatar." i found a way to re-articulate the painting language that i was trying to get for 15 years through 3-d animation and my body. reified desire was a departure point for my previous videos. they were constantly referring to the didactics of family photography. it was so much politics. reifying desire was in the family of surrealism.

you're trying to make something abstract concrete. i wanted to do a series where the only role was to find disparate archives and things that are incongruent and to make them congruent. as a person -- when a person looks in the gray area, that is where the politics come from. that is where the heavy stuff comes from. that is where you find my honesty. it is trying to take those crystalline abstractions for my mother and make them into -- make sense out of them. what is so great about the piece at the whitney is because i have

been doing so many residencies and -- in the middle of nowhere. my practice was having them meet my body and camera and green screen. i got so obsessed with performing on the brooklyn bridge in the subways and the financial district and i did five hours of performance in 95 degree weather with the film crew. >> take a look. this is some footage of the video series. you use everything, don't you? >> i do. >> i am a greedy kid. i use everything. >> performance, 3-d animation. >> i compare it to milton avery. and his plein air paintings and going back to his studio. it is like doing a study in the public and bringing it back and making it bigger and more grand

and thinking about how to push forward your observations into something personal. >> when you go back to the curators, when you see your floor, are they connected in any way? >> yes and no. what is really great about the format of this particular biennial, in the past, they have had notable traders. we come to different conclusions about certain ideas and then it is important to foreground that and suggest that there are real points of view and institutions my not this official voice. it is important to reveal that to the public. it suggests the polyphonic voice where there is no easy answers on how to define contemporary art as you suggested. the fact that the audience can pick and choose and make the connections across three floors and come away with different perspectives, i think that is exciting. >> they come away with more questions than answers. >> which i think is a good thing. the best exhibitions pose interesting questions. >> thank you. the biennial of 2014. the last you will see at the building at madison avenue. ♪