>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin tonight with our continued coverage of the nuclear agreement with iran. a framework deal was announced last thursday. iran agreed to scale back its program in return for a gradual suspension of sanctions. critics say the deal poses a danger to israel's security and concedes too much ground to iran. president obama spoke with "new york times" columnist tom friedman this weekend. he tried to ease israeli fears and would consider it a failure if the country was rendered more vulnerable. he called the deal a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

joining me now from washington is peter baker, the chief white house correspondent of "the new york times." peter, tell me how you see the president's frame of mind reflected in part by tom friedman's interview as he strives to bring real probably the most important negotiations of his presidency. peter: i think that is exactly right. he sat down with tom friedman on saturday at the white house to pitch his deal and also to think in larger terms of what it could mean for the region. he clearly has this idea that if they can make this work, if they could finalize a deal in june and get past obstacles like congress, there is a chance to transform security in the region and perhaps even begins to change iran a little bit. he is not counting on that. he is realistic to understand that iran is a complicated country, as he put it. but, clearly he has ambitions to go beyond simply curbing its nuclear program. charlie: ambitions include what, do you think?

peter: he has argued that should the sanctions be lifted, should the economy of iran get better as a result that would empower more moderate figures in the country and encourage the notion they want to be part of the community of nations and that would temper some of the more destabilizing actions they have taken over the years -- the sponsorship of terrorist organizations, the backing for assad and syria, the houthi rebels in yemen. iran is a big player, an important player in the middle east right now. the key to so much of the conflict the united states finds themselves trying to manage. charlie: the president is saying to himself and to the country we ought to try this, it is the deal of a lifetime because beyond reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation in the middle east, it has the

possibility of being the first part of a building block to change the middle east. peter: he does see it that way. he's realistic enough, so he says in the interview, to recognize that might not be the case and it is really hard to get a read on iran. he has exchanged letters with the ayatollah. he says he is a tough read and that the letters are filled with grievance about the united states and the west. who knows what that really means? at the same time, he said he was impressed by the fact the ayatollah let his negotiators make concessions as part of these nuclear talks, something that might not have been possible in the past. that suggests a shift in tehran. charlie: do we believe that he believes this because a, it has not been tried before and b, that he can still take care of the risk because of inspections and because he has pledged, as

he says, to take care of israel, to see israel's back? peter: exactly right. a lot of critics say this deal is too easy on iran, has given away too much, allows them to keep too much of their nuclear program. the president is arguing that we will have inspections in there. we are going to be inspecting their entire nuclear chain from start to finish, from the uranium mines to processing. and that will in fact provide a measure of surety they are following the terms of the deal. if not, he says this is still a country, ours, with a $600 billion defense budget compared to a $30 billion defense budget for iran. we still have the greater firepower to enforce military options, should that be necessary. he clearly does not want that to be the outcome and he sees this the best alternative to more war in the middle east. charlie: he seems to be saying a modification of reagan's trust but verify. he is saying we have to trust

this agreement to go forward but we have the capacity to verify because we have new inspection opportunities and we are maintaining all of our options that this will not happen. in fact, he said it is a fundamental failure of my administration if, in fact israel is more vulnerable because of something i have done. peter: that is exactly right. that is a line that got his opponents' attention. many of whom say he has done that, already made israel more vulnerable through this deal and through the fight that he and benjamin netanyahu have been having lately. the white house denies that. it is funny you mention the reagan line. that is a version of which susan rice, his national security advisor, used recently in a speech to aipac in washington. she says their approach is a variation that is don't trust and verify.

they are trying to make the case they are not relying simply on trust. they understand the iranians have cheated before, lied before and hid their program before. this is not a question of being naive as their critics accuse them of being. charlie: john kerry argues that they have new and better inspections than they ever had before in those opportunities where iran as either lied or misled or refused to disclose. peter: that is right. it is harder to judge because we don't really have all the details yet about what these inspections would be like. the president was asked does this mean inspectors can go anywhere, any place they think there is suspicion of nuclear activity? the president acknowledged there would be a mechanism by which iran could object to such a thing. the question is can they make such an appeal happen in a quick enough time that iran could use

that process to clean up a suspected site? those are the kind of questions you will hear a lot of the next couple months as they finalize this deal. charlie: what do you think it means to him? peter: it means a lot to him. he has had a rough go on foreign policy these last six years. a lot of the grand aspirations that he had once articulated now feel beyond him. he hoped to create a new partnership with russia. he hoped to bring peace between the israelis and the palestinians. he hoped to disentangle us from war in iraq. all of these things obviously have not turned out as he wished. this is one area, not the only but one area he could make a big difference if it works. if he were to leave office and became the president that changed the relationship with iran, which has been so hostile for somebody decades, that would be something that he would view as an important part of his legacy and important for the country. charlie: maybe a way to earn the nobel peace prize that he was given at the beginning of his presidency when he too

acknowledged he did little to justify it or to earn it. peter: he earned the nobel peace prize long before he spent much time in office and he would like to find ways to demonstrate it was a good decision to make. charlie: you quoted in a piece on april 2 cliff kupchan who said the following -- "right now, he has no foreign-policy legacy. he's got a list of foreign-policy failures. the deal with iran and the ensuing transformation of politics in the middle east would provide one of the more robust foreign-policy legacies of any recent presidencies. it is kind of all in for obama. he has nothing else, so for him, it is all or nothing." peter: he is stating this in rather stark terms, maybe some degree of hyperbole. there are other things of that the president could look to -- particularly his opening with cuba. he hopes to get out of afghanistan by the time he

leaves office and so on. basically, what cliff kupchan is saying that for all the disappointments he has had around the world, this is one thing that would be a lasting legacy if it works. what his critics will say is it could be the other way around. they accuse him of being another neville chamberlain. the legacy would be a negative one if iran ends up cheating and obtains a bomb despite what they see as a bad deal. charlie: they say that we cannot afford for him to be wrong and we think he is wrong. peter: that's exactly right. they pointed to examples -- north korea, president clinton came to a deal with them in 1994 to curb their nuclear program. north korea cheated and they ended up with a bomb. and that's obviously an example that nobody wants to repeat. what president obama and the white house would say is they learned a lesson from that. this is a more intensive inspection regime they have put in place. they are more aware of what iran is up to. they expressed optimism that

they would not fall into the same trap. charlie: what did they say to the fact that the iran and the u.s. have different interpretations as to what has been agreed to? peter: they think it is to be expected which is why they need three more months to put the concepts into writing. a single document that all sides, including the british the french, the germans, the russians and chinese would agree to. in some ways, the differences are pretty important. it will have to be subject to negotiations. in some ways, the differences are a matter of spin. the united states is emphasizing that iran would have to reduce its number of centrifuges that are spinning and enriching uranium by two thirds. iran is talking about how they get to keep so many centrifuges spinning. each side taking the more preferred angle they would sell to their own public. charlie: here is what is interesting to me, too -- you know this as well as anybody is

suggesting -- the president was, when he made the decision to take the risk of going in after osama bin laden, showed a considerable political risk at the time and risk to his presidency -- remember jimmy carter -- and he was successful. even though some people said there are other alternatives that are less risky, he chose to go with that option and he was right. now, it seems like it is the same quality in him. he looks at the thing and is taking the bold action because he thinks that is the only way to achieve the results necessary and he understands completely the risk. peter: i think that is right. he is an analytical person. he looks at the different inputs and will respond to it the way he sees it being best. once he makes that decision, it can be a pretty bold one and one he will defend vigorously. in this case, what he is being

accused of by his critics is being too naive, not cognizant enough of the threat and the risk that iran really poses. it is a bold decision. he is gambling a lot on it. these next three months will be really important. can he actually bring it to conclusion and convince the congress not to block it? charlie: in the end, it is the risk and all that, and the opponents are saying what is the difference at the core between what the opponents of this and what the president say. is it about you simply cannot trust the iranians and it comes down to that? peter: a lot of it is that. what the president is saying is the choice is between this deal or a risk of war. the only option would be a military solution that he thinks would not stop their program for very long. the opponents say that is a binary formulation that you are

trying to fit us into. you are trying to make us look like warmongers. many of them say that is not the case. the case is we are looking for a better deal and we can keep the pressure up with sanctions, we can get them to give in more than they have so far. that is a hard question to answer. could they come up with a better deal or not? that is going to be at the heart of this debate. charlie: the president would probably say if it was easy, anybody else could do it. peter: exactly. everybody who is not the president has good ideas for how a president should do their job. it is an important question and a lot is at stake. the security of our ally in israel and our other arab friends who are weary of iran in the middle east. there is a reason this debate has gotten so pointed and sharp. charlie: peter, thank you for joining me. peter: thank you. charlie: peter baker from "the new york times." we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

charlie: this month marks two years since pope francis was elected as the 266th roman catholic pontiff. he has emerged as an extremely popular figure for many catholics who credit him with reinvigorating the church. he has drawn criticism from conservatives for his positions on issues like homosexuality single motherhood and unwed couples. garry wills considers both

perspectives in his new book "the future of the catholic church with pope francis." he is a pulitzer prize-winning author and a professor at northwestern university. i'm pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. garry: thank you. charlie: you like this pope. garry: i like him a lot. although, he is disappointing many of us liberals which i think is his job. what is nice about him is that he learned so much as a provincial of the jesuits in argentina then as the archbishop of buenos aires. the first thing that made me like him was when he said i was wrong. i was a terrible provincial because i did not hold people together by consultation. he said i was immature. they put me in too soon and that was crazy. charlie: he looks at himself with a certain candor. garry: he knows that he has to listen to other people, not just dictate to other people. what i like about him is he is

disappointing liberals, but he is driving the conservatives crazy which is probably good too. charlie: disappointing liberals because he we won't go as far as liberals would like for him to go. garry: right. and, fast enough and to do things like the sex abuse scandals. he is not going to join either faction, i presume. he cannot join the right because they are mean. they want to use dogma to exclude. they want to use the eucharist to get rid of politicians they don't agree with. he has said the eucharist is not a prize you give to people, it is a medicine for those who need it. he has also said the church is like a field hospital after battle. when you go out, you heal the wounds. you don't say, how is your diet? whereas the right are like people that go out on the battlefield and shoot the wounded. on the other hand, he is not really pleasing to some on the left because, like john xxiii,

he believes in popular piety, in devotions which a lot of liberals have dismissed. the trouble with us liberals is we are the know-it-alls. and he is not that. it is very refreshing and it is so surprising to have a pope who is a christian. charlie: a pope who is a christian. a pope who wants to follow in the way of christ. garry: exactly. i love that he is trying to avoid the trappings, the palace, the fancy shoes and all those things. and the name. he came in second at the conclave that chose benedict. he was asked at the time, if he was chosen, what name would he have taken? he said john xxiv. well, he has had time to think since then and he has come up

with a much more radical name. francis was not even a priest. he was so radical that his followers, immediate followers tried to tame his message as soon as he died. they split off into various observances as to how harsh and christlike his life was. when francis does not want to get all dressed up in all that regalia, pope francis -- i think when my wife and i looked at the robe that st. francis wore, it was a patched, raggedy robe. i think this pope if he could do it would wear it. charlie: the interesting thing when you talked about when you said wounded in battle that you first treat the wounds was his idea that we have some very important things here and let's not worry about the dogma issues. let's deal with the things that are dividing this church. garry: he said we talk too much about church and not christ. about law and not grace. he wants to change the emphasis.

conservatives say he has not changed any dogma yet, just the tone. i think a more accurate way of putting it is he is changing the culture. everything he does signals things like i'm not above you, different from you, i'm like you. when he turned down living in the papal palace, it was not because it was too luxurious, it was because it was too lonely. he said i cannot live alone. i need to have people around me. so, he went back to casa santa marta which he had a room in at the time he was elected. he goes to the communal meal there. he has mass in the adjacent chapel, not the big vatican chapel altar. he has really reversed the impulses of power. power always wants to isolate itself. you have to go into a palace and

go through a lot of people. he picks up the telephone and calls people. charlie: there is also this notion that -- about dogma as a non-catholic. what do you have to do to change dogma? garry: that is a good question. often, you don't. it just falls out of use. when you look at things like interdicts, indulgences, bans on usery, all those things -- there was never any renunciation. it was just the people of god just started living in a different way. when people want him to change the teaching on contraception for instance, he knows the catholics overwhelmingly practice contraception. the bishops only said it because under the last two popes, a litmus test for advancing your career was that you would never

question the teaching on contraception, abortion, married priests, women priests. you needed to have a clean bill on those. they were looking up towards rome. they were not paying any attention to what was going on in the pews. the pope, when he was asked about contraception, praised paul xi and said he was teaching against neo-malthusianism and against european colonialism of the third world. he said it is up to women nonetheless to work it out with their confessor which is exactly what is happening. that has happened all the time in the church. it is happening now. for instance, the church, the teaching part of the church, has not changed the position on one of the sacraments, penance, the confessional. catholics just aren't going anymore so that will be a dead

letter, too. nonobservance is the way you change. charlie: is it a fact -- i don't know the answer to this -- a lot of nonpracticing catholics have come back to the church? garry: i don't know about that. i would not be surprised. i think practicing ones are coming to the church more often. i have noticed even in a liberal campus church, the tone has certainly changed. i hear less about dogma and more about the poor. charlie: what does it mean that he is a jesuit? garry: that is a complicated matter. he had a rift with the jesuits. he had planned to retire to a non-jesuit home to be buried in a non-jesuit cemetery. the bad feelings he had with the jesuits, he blamed on the fact

that he was made the provincial when he was not qualified. he said there was a whole generation of jesuits that disappeared. after the second vatican council, a stream of them left and a very small trickle were coming in. people who finished their long training and were about to enter the active ministry, there was a very small pool of people to appoint to high office. he was appointed there. i know a priest in america who went through the exact same thing. he also says, i was not qualified, but they did not have anybody around. so, he was on the outs. he did not hold the jesuits together who were divided during the dirty war over how much liberation theology they could entertain. but, he learned from that experience. he instantly established his

ties with the jesuits. called them up right away, went to their house. gave that wonderful long interview. charlie: with "america." garry: and the other jesuit journals. six hours over three days. charlie: that was the first thing he did, wasn't it? garry: practically, yeah. it was a six-hour session over three days. he was very frank, open with them. now, they are going to be terrifically proud of him at a time they didn't -- he may have owed his promotion by john paul ii to the fact that he was on the outs with so many jesuits. john paul despised the jesuits.

he thought pedro arrupe, the spanish general of the jesuits was a liberation theologian. when john paul was elected, i went to cover that for "new york magazine." i talked to the head of the jesuits then. pedro arrupe had a stroke and vincent o'keefe, the american assistant, was the acting head. it was one of the reasons why the pope did not allow the jesuits to elect their own leader after that. he told me, o'keefe did, my first meeting with the pope as the head of the jesuits, i said to him i don't have your experience, your office, your depth of theology, but i do have a very close association with a number of priests who have left and want to be still of service to the church, to belong.

the pope was not saying they left in their good graces so they could not be communicants. the newly-elected pope looked at me and said no, they broke their oath. that is, again, shooting the wound rather than healing them. charlie: there is a question that many people have been so conscious of -- sexual abuse in the church. garry: that is a tough one. i know advocates and victims of sexual abuse. they are very disappointed in him because they were hoping he could come in and do something quick. there is no, first of all, there is no remedy for something that horrible. it is like a number of american japanese refused to take compensation funds from the government for their internment because it was inadequate.

they said, they don't understand the depth and scope of what we went through. given that, if you are trying to imagine what could he do, it is a very difficult thing. what one rule will tell you who qualifies as a victim, how you protect the accused, what scale and through what channels do you do retribution? i cannot imagine, i cannot come up with any formula that would meet all those criteria. i'm sure if he could, he would. but, he is appointing people to improve the procedures. he has interviewed victims. he did send to the u.n., the human rights commission, representatives who said what

had not been said up until that time. silently, 800 priests were defrocked without telling anybody. that's giving some idea of scale. now it is coming out in the open. that is what was so good about last year. during the drafting of that report, an early draft got out that was much more open to gays and divorced people. the conservatives there said wait a minute, that is not the final document. they were able to water down the document. he said, i'm glad you all spoke out. that is what we need. please do it. then, he published the proceedings and how everybody voted. up to that time, the creation of the second vatican council, john paul made them secret. what they did was write a report and give it to him and he used

it any way he wanted or not. this pope said good. let's have the debate and have everybody know about it. now, the people going into the follow-ups know this time what they say and how they vote will be known to the people. i think the reaction of the people was certainly on the side of the more generous bishops. charlie: what place would john paul ii have in catholic history? garry: he will be admired. charlie: he gets the most attention when it comes to the vatican other than pope francis. garry: he was a very strong figure. i covered his election. that was a time of tremendous hope. on the other hand, he was very

rigid, as i told you about saying no to the jesuits breaking their oath. and very autocratic by the end of his life. he will be admired and also i think pitied because he outlived his -- george mitchell was given a private audience with the pope for his peacemaking in ireland. i had an hour-long driving away from a panel we were on. he told me in his private audience with the pope, a very nice monsignor took him in, he was warmly greeted. they exchanged gifts. when he came out, he said to the monsignor, what language was he speaking? he said english. he was so deteriorated by then he could not tell what he was saying. benedict, some people think there is some scandal that drove

him out of office. i think he resigned office because he had seen john paul -- charlie: what the ravages of age had done to john paul. garry: he did not want to put the church through that again. charlie: do you have some hope that francis will be able to be a powerful force in making sure we don't slide into some kind of clash of civilizations or religious wars? garry: on that, he knows and admires muslims. he praises the koran. he knows there is only one god and there are many paths to god. the holy spirit works in them all. he said the holy spirit does not only work through us. he has not forgotten. charlie: is mohammed equivalent to jesus? garry: they are both prophets. jesus is more than a prophet.

he is god, too, which mohammed is not. the muslims all agree that moses was a great prophet, jesus was a great prophet and mohammed was a great prophet, but not god. that is where we do differ. nonetheless, for us to believe that jesus is god does not separate us from people who think he was not god, but a prophet. spirit works through that prophet, too. charlie: why is jesus god? garry: because he said so, for one thing. others said so. i like that the fact that jesus wanted to join us. why did he -- norman mailer said i cannot believe in a god who

does not suffer, who does not come to our side. that is what he did. he came and wanted to live all the things we undergo. and, for god to have creatures that he loves, he would want to come as close to us as possible. that is what jesus is. charlie: the book is called "the future of the catholic church with pope francis." garry wills, author of so many books looking at religion and some of the powerful religious figures. it is always a pleasure. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: annie cohen-solal is here. she is an author and cultural historian. she has written biographies. her latest book tells the story of one of the 20th century's greatest painters, mark rothko. it is called "mark rothko: toward the light in the chapel." i'm pleased to have annie cohen-solal back to this table. welcome. good to see you again. how did this come about? this book. it says jewish lives on it as well. annie: i was suggested to write about mark rothko, an american painter. these jewish life series have

very little about art because jews don't have a great history with art. do you know why? charlie: no. annie: because in judaism, there is a commandment which says you don't represent god. so, jews arrived in the art world when abstractions started. there is a beautiful quote by leo steinberg about the jewish nation and abstraction. a lot of jews, immigrants actually, who were part of the art world after art became abstract, as dealers, as collectors, as artists. but, in these jewish life series, you have intellectuals philosophers, scientists, but very few people from the art world. one is mark rothko. it is interesting, don't you think? charlie: i do.

you have said that rothko could only have been a painter. there was no other profession. annie: he could have been a writer, a philosopher, a professor, but his experience at yale was so bad. the man was raised in a settlement in russia because his father thought it would protect him from being drafted into the russian army. he was really an intellectual. he was a thinker, but his experience at yale university was so terrible. it was a time when he arrived there in 1921, jews were not very well accepted by the establishment. i found these letters from the dean and the provost -- charlie: at yale?

annie: jews are coming here by the thousands and getting all the fellowships. we have to put a ban on the jewish element. rothko was raised as a scholar and was really disappointed by the fact that he was not fitting in. he understood it was a club of wasps, he said. it was for people good at sports, well raised, wellborn. he was an immigrant. he came to this country at the age of 10. he fought his way in. charlie: didn't you say the status of an artist would at least enable him to create a true identity for himself in the united states or gave him that? annie: i think he became an artist -- it was both an epiphany and a necessity. he found art by accident when he went with a friend and saw studios and found it very interesting.

immediately, he started to understand that he would follow one of his professors. one was max weber and the other was milton avery. charlie: they were professors and mentors. annie: he had a mentor that he followed for 10 years. he started working and exchanging. and then he became an activist. very early on, he was someone who was a role model, who was confronting the institutions writing letters to "the new york times," writing letters to the director of the metropolitan museum. charlie: and who were the 10? annie: that is such a beautiful story. this was a group of guys -- actually there were nine. they were all immigrants, first generation or second-generation. the link was not so much aesthetical. one was doing abstraction, one

was doing figurations, but it was a social link. it was a solidarity of immigrants. they were trying to get into new york city. charlie: they were also rejecting the mainstream of art. annie: completely, yeah. in fact, this group of jewish artists -- they were all jews -- this group was very important to create a link between the local american artists and the avant-garde modernist europeans. those people were really the ones who were able to enable them to emancipate from this heavy burden of europe. charlie: i will get to the

slides. the 1940's was a crucial time for rothko. annie: yes, because for one year he stops painting and puts his pressures aside and decides to write a book. charlie: this was what year? annie: 1940. it is not in a year. it is a very important year historically. what the book is all about is revisiting the status of the artists in all historical time and all geographical time. he's trying to understand what were the golden ages for the artists. the france of the cathedrals the florence of renaissance artists, the netherlands of rembrandt. he is trying to understand when the artists were considered as a wonderful citizen. he noticed it was not the time he was living at.

it was not in 1940. he is trying to revisit all of that. after he finishes his book, he understands what is the definition of art, what is the definition of the artist. in a very encyclopedic way rereading freud and shakespeare, one thing that is so beautiful he creates this idea of the artists as a hero. for him, the artist is someone who favored hunger over compliance. who is his hero? rembrandt. why? because he did so. he said rembrandt could not care less that his patrons were in favor of the illustrators of his time. he went on to experiment with light. what rothko admired so much was

a single individual experimenting against the establishment. charlie: how did the holocaust -- how did he come to terms with the holocaust? annie: his family left in 1913. he was someone who did not talk much about that. i think his family was secular. he himself, apart from the time he went, was not somebody who went to the synagogue. he was a secular jew. his jewish identity was mainly i would say, his respecting the tradition. like being a teacher transmitting values.

being an intellectual. another thing is that he really understood that the artist had a mission, almost like a prophet. he wrote about it. it is like repairing the world was his words. what is beautiful is this manuscript you mentioned which was written in 1940 was not published until 2005. his son christopher, who was six when his father committed suicide in 1970, who found the text, transcribed the text edited it and published it 10 years. charlie: he found it 10 years ago? annie: just worked on it and published it 10 years ago. this was a document that was very important for my research because you understand how the

man is struggling to get into a country to express himself properly. he's more in tuned with the artists of the past like rembrandt than with the people next door in new york city. this is what i find very interesting -- this tension. rothko is about displacement geographical displacement, and tension between the present and the past, the present and the future. charlie: what happened in the 1960's of changing political climate and how did that impact rothko when he looked at the world around him? annie: he was commissioned to do the seagram murals at the four seasons restaurant. he first accepted it. it was this magnificent building on park avenue. he was a very successful painter. everything was going perfectly well for him.

having to do these murals gave him the idea of doing side specific work where the person is surrounded by the art. he worked for a whole year. then he traveled to europe. he went to see michelangelo. he went to see what fra angelico had done. charlie: this was initiated by the seagram project? annie: yes. then he started pondering, he started thinking and doubting about the seagram project. then he went to england and he saw a group of disciples of him living on an island. he saw trouble. he decided actually i don't want my paintings to be in these surroundings. he's taking back his -- charlie: it was also the rich diners and all of that.

annie: he decided that politically he does not want his paintings to be in this environment. he sent back the money. that is when dominic came. charlie: and went to do the chapel. annie: he wanted to experiment. he went from being an immigrant to being an artist to becoming a pioneer. charlie: and the relationship to philip johnson? annie: it was not very good. somebody -- i think it was robert motherwell, who was very close to rothko, he said rothko was a mensch and philip johnson was a worldly man. see what i mean? charlie: of course. annie: how is your yiddish? [laughter] charlie: not so good. what happened -- what was it in 1970?

when he committed suicide. annie: yes, february 1970. charlie: why did he commit suicide? annie: suicide is like a divorce. it is not when you act out when it starts. it is a few months before. there was a process of doubting. charlie: doubting his own? annie: doubting his own -- look, he is successful, but he had a stroke. he became depressed. he started being unbalanced. he left his wife. he went to live in the studio, so he just lost his environment. he was unable to paint as much as he did before. then he started being -- getting all these visits of people courting him from all over the world. i think the relationship with the marlboro gallery was not a good one. he felt a pressure.

instead of showing the last paintings, he went away. charlie: we talked about him and his life and his death. let's take a look at some of your book. let's talk about these slides. show me the first slide. annie: it is a self-portrait. charlie: what does it reveal about him? annie: it is the only self-portrait he ever did. he is copying the self-portrait by rembrandt. there were 90 self-portraits by rembrandt. this is the only one by rothko. he is identifying with rembrandt. do you mind? charlie: no. annie: i'm doing a rothko-rembrandt show in amsterdam. charlie: oh, good. annie: i will be curating that. fascinating. charlie: next is plate six. this is 1948. a stylistic phase he went through in the 1940's. annie: yes, so after being painting figurative, as we saw

before, now he is experimenting and it is called multi-form. he is going into those rectangles of light floating on top of each other. after that, he will see the red studio which was a prominent piece. he will go to much more clear rectangles. here, he is still hesitating. charlie: next is plate eight which is 1955. annie: perfect. he just had a show in chicago. wonderful show, one-man show. he is switching from the gallery. this is like typical signature style of mark rothko. something he will hate when critics will say he is decorative. he cannot stand that people call his art decorative. for him, his work should be an experience.

everybody who is in front of his paintings must interact with them. it is not consumption, something you pass by. something which turns you into something else. it empowers you. the function of art is much more, much deeper than something that you buy or you look. charlie: the next is plate 13. this is 1961. annie: that is exactly the year that the show, the wonderful one-man show takes place. we are getting these different layers of colors. charlie: you see the darker palette. annie: i don't want us to think that rothko is going through a darker palette because he is getting depressed. when rothko stops the seagram project and start experimenting,

what he does is finding new pigments, finding new ways of turning his paintings into something almost florescent. so that he creates a chemical project in which the retina is attracted by the painting. he wanted his painting to be hanged low on off-white walls with very little light. you are just pulled into the art. and it becomes an experience. charlie: plate 16 is 1969, the year before his suicide. annie: exactly. it is not that it becomes darker because the last painting we think might be red. it just becomes more interesting in the interaction he creates with the viewer. charlie: the book is called "mark rothko: towards the light in the chapel." annie cohen-solal, thank you. a pleasure. great to see you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪ >> bloomberg politics special randall howard and rand paul. grexit i am putting myself forward. >> will be rand brand expand, or is the rand brand bland? tonight, the rand brand plan. >> that was pretty clever. that was all right. announcer: and i have got more. can rand paul do it all? it is total recall. he came in like a wrecking ball.