♪ announcer: from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." charlie: joining me on the phone from iraq, embedded with the curd troops in the fight against isis. tell me what you have seen and heard today. what is the future of this fight? >> all day long what we have seen mostly are these tremendous airstrikes, dozens of them striking. we have a good vantage point over the entire city. it was relentless last night and

from the dawn this morning. airstrike after airstrike, targeting suspected isis positions inside the city itself. in addition to that, peshmerga forces have taken a position on the mountain, where they have been firing artillery at these positions in addition to that. at the same time, we watched as thousands of peshmerga forces moved into the city itself. they were in every vehicle you can imagine. there were people in the back of pickup trucks with machine guns. ordinary civilians, volunteers were charging to the front lines to take on isis. they have been fighting all day, small arms fire, machine gun fire. it is long after dark year. charlie: how long will it take

them to take sinjar. >> taking sinjar is one question, holding it is another. isis was resisting where the major offensives have begun. they are facing three specific dangers, sniper fire, car bombs and truck bombs charging towards these checkpoints, and we are seeing them in the city. in addition, they believe the whole city is booby-trapped. clearing isis out may take a couple of days, maybe not more than that, but clearing the city of the dangers is going to take much longer. charlie: how effective have been the american airstrikes? >> when you speak to peshmerga commanders, they say they could not do it without america and its allies. they would not be able to move against isis forces. soldiers on the ground say that

win isis here the jets in the air, they run for cover, hide in tunnels, because they don't want to face it, can't face it. they say they want to die as martyrs, but they know what will happen with these airstrikes. that opens the opportunity for peshmerga forces to move in on the city. they certainly couldn't take sinjar if not for the help of u.s. airstrikes and its allies. charlie: is sinjar the first step in retaking mosul? >> that is precisely the question we put to them. sinjar sits right in the middle of the isis stronghold in syria, and on the other side, mosul. commanders say we will take sinjar first, break the supply lines, then look at other cities, then mosul.

if it continues to go the way it is going, learning the lessons they are learning here, how they can then apply that to mosul, a much harder offensive. charlie: one last question. any possibility that iragi troops will be joining them? >> probably not in sinjar. we have seen theypg, syrian-kurdish forces. they are proud of the victories

they have had against isis, that they will have to work with iraq. seeing both sides of them working when they took control of the mosul dam, there was tension between these two forces. they will have to find some level of coordination. they can't do it without each other that is for certain. charlie: thank you so much. charlie on the ground in iraq. we will be right back. ♪

charlie: turning to politics and the 2016 campaign, it is a big week for debate. republican candidates met on tuesday, while democrats face off saturday. joining me is the chief white house correspondent for cbs news, and i pleased to have him on this program. we take a look every weekend where the election campaign is. let's begin with the democrats. tell me about trends, issues, and changing poll numbers.

>> the trends are in hillary clinton's favor. the debate coming up will be a pivotal moment in deciding whether this race is effectively over for democrats, or if there is another act that needs to play out. it will be crucial for bernie sanders. hillary clinton leads nationally, i had in iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina. is this race over? bernie sanders will have to tell those watching the debate and democratic activist there is a reason to keep their minds open, that they're all to be an alternative to hillary clinton. martin o'malley will make that same case. no one is closer to hillary clinton than bernie sanders. it will be the degree to which martin o'malley and bernie sanders make this case, that she may have moved to the left on some issues, but is that authentic? does she believe the things she

is saying? why is that important? because the democrats begin to make the argument against hillary clinton that she would do anything or say anything to win the nomination. they will be playing into the hands of whom? the republicans. that will be one of the central tardis against hillary clinton. that she is inauthentic to her core. i will be interested to see how far down that road bernie sanders and martin o'malley go. charlie: are they in fact prepared to take the gloves off? >> they are. they know that since joe biden did not enter the race, and hillary clinton had a good couple of weeks, she has begun to consolidate her lead and all the early primary and caucus states, this race may fall into a holiday lull that bernie sanders may not have another shot. on saturday, he will have to

draw contrasts and really try to pick apart the positions she has taken, and say to democrats, give me a longer second look. charlie: is there any evidence that there is much that divides the two of them other than an attitude about wall street? >> an attitude about wall street, certainly. it is all about degree, how much would you decrease regulation on wall street, bring to account those within the larger banking structures who have not been brought to account for actions taken that led to the great reception, differences there. there might be differences in their approach on gun control.

hillary clinton likes to say she is more aggressive than bernie sanders. bernie sanders in his political career was captive if not to the in our rake, those who sympathize with gun rights in vermont. that is to areas where they could draw a contrast. one way is to say if you want someone who is saying the same thing i said 20 years ago, look at me. hillary clinton cannot do that. she cannot claim that kind of consistency and authenticity. bernie sanders is saying the same thing he said 20 years ago, the democratic party has moved in his direction, so he resonates in ways that he has not before. bernie sanders spent years and years on the outer hinterland on many of these key issues, now he is not. he is central to the conversation.

charlie: let's turn to the republicans. we saw the difference is beginning to emerge at the debate on immigration. where is that republican race right now? >> republican race is still dominated by two clinical novices who are outsiders to the entire political conversation republicans have had for the past 20 years, donald trump and ben carson our leaders here in iowa, leading in new hampshire, and leading in south carolina. if you add up their support in those three states and look at the numbers they have nationally, their supporters constitute roughly 50% to 60% of the likely primary and caucus turnout. that is substantial, not only in raw numbers, but in that republicans have become so sick of what they consider to be -- it's not fraudulent, unproductive establishment

figures that they sent to washington that they are looking so far out of the mainstream that they're looking at donald trump and ben carson. will that remain? that is the question republicans are asking in all states. many republicans who thought trump and cars and would not last would have told you that in august, september, october, they are now making a reassessment. i was talking to activist, conservative republicans, they all believe in iowa that the pecking order is likely to be on caucus night, donald trump, ben carson, marco rubio, and maybe ted cruz. everyone else is possibly not part of the conversation. charlie: why do so many people believe that this may end up as a race between marco rubio and

ted cruz? >> the assumption is that as voters get closer to making an ultimate decision, though they may like donald trump, admire ben carson, they are not going to imagine them being the nominee of the party or potential next president of the united states and they will peel away. that support will have to land somewhere. if you talk to conservative activists in iraq, many believe ted cruz has positioned himself certainly here to be the inheritor of people who peel away if they do from trump and carson. and many who thought jeb bush was going to be the front runner and remain the front runner in this race no longer believe that, and they look at marco rubio as the most attractive alternative to jeb bush and the likely recipient of what ever establishment vote doesn't go for jeb bush. so if you assume, and this is a huge assumption that has no basis in fact up until now that carson and trump will collapse, that vote has to go somewhere, much of it will go to ted cruz,

and some to marco rubio, and then he will clean up the remainder of that establishment vote. that is the working theory. charlie: there was much talk about ben carson's biography. has that subsided? >> it has tapered off. it will never completely subside, because ben carson's biography is a crucial part of what he brings to the table. people find some things very admirable about ben carson's biography. they are drawn to it. so a candidate who is not driven entirely by his biography, but largely, sees that as a source of strength, will always have to deal with his biography. it will never subside completely, but it has tapered off. the one thing that ben carson has done is blame the messenger, that is the message that tends to work with republicans, the

media is the supposed aggressor or enemy in these presidential campaigns. ben carson has effectively turned that around to make the media as much of the issue as the holes in his biography, which were not substantial. no one doubts that ben carson rose from poverty, had a tough existence, went to yale, succeeded, became a world renowned new row surgeon. not the whole biography itself. charlie: finally, let me turn to immigration. there were some differences there. you had jeb bush point out that this mass deportation that donald trump talks about, if it came to a reality, you would see high fives in the clinton campaign, because they knew those latino and hispanic voters would roll to the democrats. >> yes, and i would say based on my conversations here, i think this is the toughest issues for the republicans to reconcile. at the grassroots level, many republicans believe that illegal immigration is a crime that has to be prosecuted and cannot be

forgiven. that is the fundamental ideological orientation to the issue, and there is no movement from that. anything short of deportation in their minds constitutes amnesty, and amnesty is impermissible in this conversation, and yet republicans will tell you all the things i just said and in the next breath acknowledge that in a general election that that is a perilous message because latino voters will not respond to it. graphics -- demographics indicate that you have got to bring the latino vote back into the fold, as george w. bush did in 2000 and 2004. they are of one mind on the issue. they are of a not a mind on the -- another mind on the strategy. it has proven difficult for many

candidates to sort this out, and i think it will be among the most important conversations in the republican party. charlie: thank you very much. cbs news white house correspondent. hope we can do this again. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: frank gehry is here,

one of the most prominent architects of our time. his use of unusual materials are considered to change the direction of architecture. among his most famous designs are the walt disney concert hall in los angeles, just to name a few. paul is a country bidding editor -- contributing editor for vanity fair magazine. he has written the first authorized biography of frank gehry. it is called "building art art.y co -- building new york times called it an informative, startling journey into architecture. i am pleased to have both of them at this table. welcome. i am forever in your debt, and i want to say it publicly, when i was being honored in washington for a nice award, you flew across the country to speak on my behalf and i am deeply indebted.

you have given me at this table and when ever have had control of airwaves every markable series of conversations. i am very proud to call you my friend. frank: thank you, sir. charlie: let's start with this, why a biography of frank gehry? paul: i wanted to do a biography because it was a different thing to do. i had never written one before. it was a way to push myself in a different direction. frank has had the most interesting life, the connection between his life and work is an intriguing one. it is a story that has some of the drama of a novel, and that is what i wanted to try to do while still explaining his

architecture. charlie: it is a portrait of architecture in the 20th and 21st century. paul: he is the character who bridges them. in many ways, he is a traditional architect, farther on the cutting edge than anybody, but is planted in what architecture has always been, beautiful objects carefully crafted, one-of-a-kind. charlie: is he more than any other man one who defines himself as an artist as much as an architect? paul: he shows us that those words are not inconsistent. he is a real architect. he cares about where the toilets go, how things work, the function. he proves it is not a zero-sum game with art. the ability to be a great work of art and function. it is not an either or situation.

frank: my friend called me a plumber right here at this table. he is a great sculptor. charlie: it's not about you. it's about architecture. anything that has function can possibly be art was his argument. frank: the tradition is that from way back that artists became architects. the tradition is they started as painters and sculptors, and the company for their careers -- paul: michelangelo. frank: became an architect.

the greatest architect of all is called the architect of heaven, so there must be something. charlie: is it easy to write about because there were diaries, letters, and models? paul: frank is not a writer. he is a talker and thinker. there was not a huge archive of written things. huge archive of interviews, many of them yours. the film by sydney pollack. i did my own interviews, hundreds of hours with frank and dozens of other people's, but he is not a guy who kept a diary, unless he has held it back from me for all these years. he is not a big letter writer. he is an easy talker. charlie: he is a collector of friends. frank: i have written forwards. paul: the beginning of chapter nine, i quoted at length from a

talk you gave. frank: the pritzker prize i wrote under duress. charlie: you weren't about to turn it down, were you? paul: you got up at 5:00 in the morning and wrote it in your hotel room, right? charlie: you are also well known for your buildings and sense of light and space and time. you are also popular. you are celebrated. you are famous. that doesn't set well. you are ambivalent about that? paul: yeah because i am insecure as i continue to work.

i see you that way. as we approach each new adventure, new problem, new thing to conquer, you can't come in overly confident or you blow it. and so there is a kind of healthy insecurity. i am doing a house for a lady now in northern california, which is a new thing. i have sleepless nights and i dream about this thing, and i can't get it. i'm suffering, suffering to the point of looking in the mirror and saying, "do i really know anything?" charlie: have you ever started projects and think that i want to do this, i am inspired to do this, but i don't know if i can, and then finally say no, this is something i can do, want to do?

paul: as you know me, i back out before i get that far. charlie: what is that about? frank: there is a lot about that in the book, pulling out of something or turning back at the last minute. one of the ways that insecurity expresses itself, the better way and the healthier way is when he pushes through it -- paul: the new york times, you made me see that once -- there were other circumstances involved. frank: there is always a reason, but the question is do you keep going? paul: usually before i sign on, if i figure that we are not on the same wave -- so much of what i do depends on the partnership with the client. i really listen to them. frank: there is a self-selecting process.

somebody who wants a traditional georgian house is not going to go to you in the first place. >> right. frank: some of them, the facebook project, zuckerberg, is someone not really interested in architecture. he is driven with his own thing. he is focused and he is brilliant. charlie: what did he say to you? frank: he came, he saw my house. charlie: your office. frank: he came with his wife. he saw my office and he said, i love this. your office -- he said, i want 10 times this. charlie: are you saying that he didn't get involved very much? he said, this is what i want? frank: this wasn't his thing.

he didn't want design with a capital "d." charlie: did you ever have any contact with steve jobs? frank: a little bit. charlie: he was so pronounced in terms of what he wanted. frank: through the close friend. charlie: norman foster was the right match for that. an absolutely perfect, object-like precision. paul: that's what he wanted. frank's work is funkier and looser. that's what facebook wanted. frank: it's the spirit of what i did for my house, which is not fancy, built on, you know, 10 acres. charlie: with the whole roof being a garden.

frank: it's a different paradigm. charlie: born in canada. thinking you would be what, wanting to do what? expecting to do what? frank: chemical engineer, he was the only one that looked interesting. so, i thought about that and went to a chemical engineer who took me out to his plant. at the end of that, he said, this isn't for you, just from my reaction to it. charlie: take a look at this from cbs. it is a wonderful series called "notes to self" in which an older frank gehry speaks to a younger frank gehry with the wisdom of perceived age. here it is. >> you were born in canada in a climate of anti-semitism. you will be the only jewish kid

in the elementary school and they will beat you up regularly for killing christ's. you can't change this. you can't change who you are, so you have got to stay the course. your family, your mother and father, will be tough on you. your father will be worried that you are a dreamer and you won't amount to much. your mother will compare you to her friends' children, and in her eyes, you will always fall short. but understand, this is their version of love. they have many, many of their own obstacles to overcome. their mother will introduce you to the art gallery of ontario where you will develop your lifelong love of painting and sculpture. she will also take you to classical music concerts that will ignite your soul.

you know that art will be your salvation. charlie: here's what's interesting about that. the idea is that -- you think building should be art, building should inspire your soul. building should create an emotion within you. frank: yes. it should feel good. most mundane levels, when you go to a space and it feels good, you feel comfortable. that's a feeling. right? can you elevate it just a little so it is engaging other senses, other parts of your intelligence? paul: i think, for a long time, wrongly thrown in with that group called the deconstructionists. you were always after feeling good, that feeling uplifted at

the same time. frank: i had a chance to ask someone if i was a decon and he said no. it was an automatic, poetic -- charlie: is he an outlier who wanted in on his own terms? paul: he was an outsider. charlie: you wanted to be there on your own terms. frank: i certainly always wanted to be loved. i didn't think adored, so much, but to be liked, yeah. i didn't know that was possible. charlie: you know what, you do love it. you love it when somebody comes over and says, i love this, and i love you for doing it, right? you had your 85th birthday party

there. frank: paul's book, by the way, has generated interesting responses from developer-client types. hired me because they thought i could be helpful. maybe the book change their minds. paul: one thing you pass on to me, from a developer said, i had been working with you for a while, i read the book, now i finally get it. now i finally understand what you are about and what is inside your head, what you are trying to do. charlie: a little more from "notes to my younger self" about his approach to architecture. frank: you will find a profession that makes sense to you and gives you a sense of personal pride.

you will be tested again and again. you will have a teacher tell you that this ain't for you, frank. find another profession. get pissed off, ignore him, vow to prove him wrong. once you find your passion for architecture, work your tail off to understand and build expertise on every facet of the profession. no matter what you do, however big or small, make it the best thing that you can, because you will be judged on everything you do. make sure everything you design and build adheres to your highest standards. push back on people who try to dilute this mixture and partner with people who support the best.

take every crisis as an opportunity to better work. finally, create buildings and places for people. it doesn't mean adding to historical models from the fast. be curious forever. never forget that life is about people, so make buildings for people. always use natural light, because it's free. [laughter] i couldn't help it. charlie: the computer really made a difference for you, didn't it? frank: it allowed me to do a lot of stuff. charlie: it allowed you to do what? frank: it allowed me to demystify things. two-deminsional things are presented to a contractor and they say, this can't be built.

the contractor on disney hall in a meeting in front of the board of directors in my office said, this building cannot be built. i was ready for him. i took him downstairs. we had the mockups with all the hard parts of the building already built because of the computer and he said, oh, i didn't understand. the building is built. paul: i think your imagination at one point was ahead of what engineering and technology could do. the computer allow those to catch up. frank: mainly, to express movement. i was taken by the sculptures in marble in london. you look at the warriors pressing the shields into the stone, and you feel the pressure of those shields in the stone. you see the horses and you feel like they are moving. there is feeling in the bronzes, if you look at the great bronzes.

you have a feeling that thousands of years old, and it is transmitted from that artist. you can do things. we couldn't do it without the computer. charlie: it is sad, i think, that your sense of the passion for the new has massed an appreciation for the old. paul: you understand historic architecture better than almost any architect i know and are influenced by it. you just don't believe influence means mimicking. influence finds its way in a much more subtle way, i think. frank: i was fortunate. there was a scholar of the

renaissance at princeton. we were talking for years. he's -- i think what the computer did, though, the tower in lower manhattan, is we were able to do that curved, flowing thing with no change orders. that's a big deal. that's 15% less cost. the construction industry wastes 30%. if you build a building for $100 million, $30 million is waste. the computer allows you to documents that are so precise. charlie: you can minimize waste. frank: minimize waste. we were able to, on some buildings, save as much as 18%. charlie: what was your

relationship to philip johnson? frank: i loved him, personally. i never got into the german stuff. i once did. charlie: i did, too. you couldn't not come at some point. basically, sort of a fascination. paul: he was fascinated by the power. i think he was attracted physically to the handsome, young german youth, and his allure, it blinded him to what was going on politically. over the years, i think he sufficiently repented in public for that. frank: his answer -- never got him anywhere, did it? >> do you have any sense of where it is going? where are we going? >> we are in the middle of it.

to me, frank gehry is probably the best direction. i'm very proud to have found somebody like frank gehry sitting there, playing with fences, doing his own house, take the pasture off, and i realized it was something that i couldn't define. i couldn't say, gee, i get that direction, that's interesting. i was baffled. i was baffled because i didn't understand. i said, you are not understanding. there is something there. charlie: i should take note of the fact that we sitting in chairs that belonged to you, designed by frank gehry.

>> they are very good. i recommend them to anybody. charlie: great talker. his role, defining periods and trends, things like that. frank: his support, for me, was a big deal. charlie: he, what, confirmed, certified, something like that? frank: yeah. he said, keep going. he came to the house when it was first built. he just said, he said he didn't understand it. charlie: but he was fascinated by it, excited by it. that did not happen that often with him. paul: he certainly did more than anyone else to put architecture at the center of mainstream culture. that was far more important than his own work, which was actually very uneven and not very good at all. frank: when i did the fish lamps, he said, you can't do this. it will work against your career and everything. two days later, he bought one. [laughter] charlie: remember the trip we took? started crying. i said, why are you crying?

he said, it is so beautiful. it was declared the most beautiful building of our time, which set it on a trajectory to be understood. frank: he loved discovering people. 75th birthday or something -- charlie: there's a picture of him surrounded by a group of younger architects, including you, who he called the kids. he called them his kids. frank: he watered the garden. michael graves and people. charlie: when you think about the work, any regrets? fork in the road? any assessment that you now make? frank: i am very self-critical,

so i do look back, but i can't go into the show i have now. i can't go in it. charlie: it is in l.a. frank: i resist going backwards and looking at stuff. we've never hired somebody to take pictures of our stuff, which was a big problem because when summary wants to publish it, to buy them somewhere, usually they are not that good. charlie: right, right. paul: i think frank really doesn't like to look back that much, partly because i think he is proud of his work. he is not being falsely modest here, but i think he sees all the little things, the anguish and the agony of bringing it into being. he doesn't pretend it all happens by magic, some shape just jumps out in his head. he knows how much anguish, how much agony, went through every object. when he goes through an exhibit, you feel that all over again.

i remember when we were doing years of interviews for this book. when i looked at the transcripts, i noticed almost all of them start 15, 30 minutes, talking about what he was doing right then. he was more comfortable talking about that. you would talk about what was on your mind then, what the latest stuff you were doing, and only then when i push you back and say, ok, but now we got to talk about 1950. frank: i live in the spirit of invention, which is precarious. i feel uneasy. somehow, i am happy there. charlie: you have a passion for sailing. what is that about? paul: that is about precariousness, too, maybe. charlie: do you have a new boat? frank: i designed a new one. it is not mine. it is a 70-foot boat for a

friend here. he is putting it in my yacht club, which will create all kinds of problems for me. charlie: what is the material? frank: wood. most new boats are made out of carbon fiber and they are faster. i prevailed upon our boat engineer, one of the greatest, to make a wood boat with him. when you are in it, you feel like you are in an old boat from way back. charlie: paul says you are part of frank lloyd wright and part woody allen. frank: hm. i've never met woody allen. frank lloyd wright, i had three opportunities to meet him -- i felt funny about his politics, his work, the way he talked

about his buildings. paul: he was very right wing. he was an extraordinary -- i don't know if he had a friendship with ayn rand. he was a big america firster. part of that whole world, which is not so great a political position. frank: i watch the interview he had. i saw somebody i liked. it was interesting. charlie: he sure understood the cult of personality. he was the first media celebrity architect. frank: he was asked, it is said you call yourself the world's greatest living architect. he said, i never said that.

you consider, he said -- i look around, i don't see much. [laughter] charlie: the eisenhower memorial. frank: it going. we are doing it. i think we are doing it. charlie: if you are asked to compromise beyond, where everything tells you to go, what do you do? frank: gracefully say goodbye. disappear. first of all, i read all the eisenhower biographies. ambrose, whatever. i fell in love, because when he was president, i was in the army. i was in the infantry. everybody thought he was the do-nothing president. he was playing golf, stuff like that.

that is what they thought at the time. you read the book and you get a whole different thing. charlie: you couldn't have done what he did without being all those other things. frank: the way he handled macarthur. and montgomery. and roosevelt, all of them. i fell in love, entered the competition, we won. david junior was on the jury and selected us. it only became obvious further in that they were taking another position. a lot of -- apart from them, there was a lot of opposition fueled by the dry house fund.

paul: there are a lot of people who believe everything in washington should be classical and traditional, and don't want to see modern things. the eisenhower family ultimately made common cause with those people, even though their interests are not the same. frank: the eisenhower commission said, he did not say all those things to me. paul: to avoid family feuding. frank: the roosevelt thing, there was family feuding, also. i like susan eisenhower. she's brilliant. she is quite a smart lady. charlie: she was strongly opposed. so, you didn't like the word "star" architect. frank: star-chitect. the press invented it and used it as a term against you.

paul: it is all about the celebrity architect. it is a bad term, in a way. there is something cheap about it. charlie: it says there is something more than talent. paul: it says it is about celebrity, not about talent. paul: on the one hand, it is that architecture is more about celebrity than it used to be, but there is a misunderstanding about what architecture is about and what it is trying to do. frank: in hindsight, there was a -- paul: it is not so easily translatable. charlie: i want to show a series of images, to give some sense of the broadness of this man's life and work. standing in front of his completed house in santa monica. this is an santa monica,

california. not quite finished yet. how long did it take you to finish? frank: i don't know. i don't remember. it wasn't that long. charlie: this is the sketch of the guggenheim as the shape begins to emerge. here it is. this is inside. it's a great scale. it is a model of the hall itself, the inside, as it was being finished. this is the walt disney concert hall in los angeles. the next one is in paris. frank: yes. charlie: there you go. that was opened a year ago. the opening is the concluding part of the book. two other things. what you are working on today, los angeles water? river? what are you doing there? you said it calls on your city planning skills. frank: the mayor asked me to do something with the l.a. river.

he was kind of jealous about the high line and said, we have 51 miles of river. can't we do something? i reminded him the high line was a derelict railroad bridge and the l.a. river was a flood control project, two different kinds of things. i approached it, with his approval, as a hydrology project, and found that there was money to be made if you handled it right that would allow for 15 cities along the river to do development by water reclamation. it would save money. i think we said $80 million a year, conservatively. it is probably twice that. charlie: this is the los angeles project, another los angeles project. a mental health center.

frank: the river i am doing is a pro bono thing, personally. the other is also philanthropic. we are also doing school, bringing arts education, elementary school. doing a lot of stuff. charlie: you're still doing work. i don't need to worry about you. frank: no. charlie: the life and work of frank gehry by paul goldberger. "building art." thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

buddy- nice place, nice car what happened? well, it all started with my free credit score from credit sesame.com. they gave me so much more than a free credit score. credit sesame's money management tools and personalized offers saved me tons of money and helped me reach my goals. i just signed up with their free app.

what's my credit score? your credit score is 650. that's magic! no, that's credit sesame.com you get so much more than a free credit score so do more with your score at credit sesame.com

narrator: the contemporary art world is vibrant and booming as never before. it is a 21st century phenomenon, a global industry in its own right. "brilliant ideas" looks at the artists at the heart of this, artists with a unique power to astonish, challenge, and surprise. in this episode, theaster gates.