and though it lurched for many, many years under the leadership of walter isakson, it seemed to a few of us that it'd feel to remember his glorious roots. it was engaged in about a rethink imaginable consequence honors except that which we showed at earth's mother milk, the arts. so we had heard the board and the board approved the creation of the program can happily were able to persuade daniel joya to come to aspen is the executive director of arts programs.

he having just been retired as everyone is aware the executive director of a national endowment for the arts. the art are now accepted in the aspen institute as fundamental. and since we began the program, this passage, written another 50, 60 years ago by maxwell andersen, i believe, maxwell andersen to see what i've the less celebrated greater literary figures from the first half of the century in america. this essay done for "the new york times" he titles, our best hope. and it reads in part this way: our best hope lies in our nation's are. for if we are to be remembered as more than the people who merely lived, loved, made war

and died, since it is for our arts that we must be remembered. captain in kingston vanish, great fortunes dissipate, leaving hardly a trace. and here did well lake inherited morals dissipates so rapidly. the multitudes flock away like lucas. the walls and the records fall and the leaders, to. the leaders to our student forgotten unless they have the wisdom to surround themselves with the doers, dancers, poets, are decisive of things of the mind in the higher. and so i join in welcoming you at the beginning of this wonderful congregation, all you

are two faces of things of the mind and heart. thank you. [applause] >> so, we begin our program with diller to pdo and ran throat and her moderator, philip kennicott, cultural critic of the "washington post." we'll have to have recessions going about visuals. after we all a visual arts institution here. it's unavoidable. philip, elizabeth, as soon as you might come and join in

welcoming our first acres. [applause] >> good morning i'm philip kennicott and this is one of the major architecture workings in the united states. i don't think there's an architecture firm that is more at the moment. they are working finishing the nature of i.c.e. at the center in new york. they been asked to do a fascinating and radical temporary faith in washington. they designed the institute is contemporary arts in boston, building on the shore of the harbor there. and i also designed the image that you see -- the building you see behind me, which has become known throughout the world as the floor building. end of his design for an expo in 2002. and you said that she wanted to

create an architecture that was very different than what i become the norm for exposition architecture. how does this building -- how does this building did not? >> in the context of our love our work is contextual and away. we don't feel like we're starting from nothing. we're starting from some point in history. and expos over the past centuries have mutated over time. and then the last version -- they've always been technology oriented, invention oriented. in the last expos were kind of proving grounds for simulation technologies. so this is like a handover where everyone was try to outdo the others by making a large simulation game. and this was on the lake at neuchâtel and switzerland.

and we wanted to do something that with a little perverse. we wanted to really reflect on vision and visuality and a desire to constantly have the most pixels per inch. so it became a cultural obsession. and we wanted to do something that was disguised bluecoat definition, to reflect on our dependence on vision of the master sent here so we did as we pulled water out of the lake and way blow it out of 35,000 nozzles to create a big cloud. and that cloud was kind of a non-space space, so to say building the size of a football field. and you could come up in one of bridges and get onto the deck and i should maybe -- this flash group. this is a typical novel. and on your right, you'll see

the kind of feeling of the interior. so it was an atmosphere that was super important to us, as expos are very, very concerned about representation of nation or representation of corporate muscle, something like that. in this expo, the question of his voice were we speaking? we were in the national swiss expo as americans. what do we represent? and here we chose to represent something that was beyond our nation or specific technological issues. it was simply to reflect on a certain kind of human expert edition of spec to call and the kind of dissolution of spec gold as a kind of theatrical experience with amar.

this was an extended experience in time. and this was the view from above. so it was an experiment, kind of a social experiment. and interestingly it started off with nothing to do, nothing to see except our own vision and dependence on vision. but it came to be adopted by the swiss, represents with. and this was when we returned to figure out whether to be in the e.u., not to be in the e.u. it's a machine to make meanings off of, which was building for us. >> in fact it became a kind of brand and also for switzerland. architecture often resist that kind of intersection with ranting. what was your feeling as this became kind of the icon of the exposition? >> it was really amusing because we found it on stamps.

we founded on lotto tickets. we founded on bottles of kirsch posher and everywhere you look there was the blur. and i think that architects could only do so much. there's an intention. there is an architects intention. this was something that we -- it was really open to the interpretation of the artists and architects involved in this. but we try to imagine how buildings and architecture can be used, but we can't really predict there. and so, it's always kind of a completion of the work to see it engaged in culture, however it's engaged. ultimately the swiss wanted to retain this and to make museum senate.

museum of science fiction so it's really bizarre. something more sadder, more melancholy than old expos that have exceeded their time. and we convinced them that this will be on this column couldn't indoor a glass wall. and so on technical grounds, we got them to blow it up and sold the field to the chinese so they'll build it. and maybe big, black cloud. >> if you go back and look at the reaction as europe is coming together, there was an extraordinary amount of skepticism. there was criticism this was an amazing amount of money to do what was just a sort of effect. and it seems that once it opened that just disappeared. so in a sense, how did you accomplish that transformation of the opinion about the

building? >> it's true. at the beginning there was a lot of bad press about the swift spending all this money, the cost almost $12 million. all this money on some big cloud that they have in great quantities and didn't really like. so why would they do it? but there was an artist in vision there initially of the leaders of the expo understood the merits of this. and when it opened, i think it totally startled everyone. they never expected the kind of experience that it was. inverse is a major project in that we have a small audience in our work which was the first massive project and a translated age of transcendent cultural background. educated, non-educated people

from all countries. and there was something basic about it. i've imagined, so people sought and that what they wanted. and some people saw some kind of religious ethical. in some ticket as just a purely environmental project that wanted to be purified. and we are very interested in that aspect of just taking something as basic as the context was meant to be a terrific context and to purify it and then to just inhale it. and eventually to drink it. so the experience was something that was kind of scary. it was very beautiful. it was dynamic. it was constantly changing. it was the least those monetary

tunic sure it didn't spread to the highway on humid days. he produced its own kind of luggage and rolls around it that no one -- you know, it's a bit of a mess, but this was because of why it's so popular and people came from all over, this was started to understand its lack of sexiness. i think that's what it is. and expo architecture. there is a fixed image, usually very muscular and managed and one that is representative of nation. and in the last expo in shanghai and seoul at those kinds of projects. but this one is indeterminate. there was no façade. there was no space. it was just a kind of habitable meeting that a changed form and the wind came and moved away from the structure and then it sunk back in. it's a very strange adamant organism that i think people --

and i have to celebrate the safe here, that we have this notion that the swiss are so rigid. and in fact this has totally embraced. so one thing i just have to mention because it's the most amazing thing in this whole project, that the swiss building authorities demanded that we would put sprinklers here. [laughter] and we had to convince them that it was the world's largest sprinkler system, 35,000 water nozzles, no walls. >> could this have been done in shanghai or is this really dependent on the context of the swiss exhibition? >> it was conceived in that romantic concept of the lakes in the mountains surrounding. i think every project for us it's about sidestepping and it's not only a physical geographical position, it's a political and social and economic condition

and so forth and so this was the project of the right time in the right place. >> i guess that's what i was driving at. you mentioned it was a building that doesn't say anything and i particularly rigid way allows projection of meaning. i'm wondering if that's an idea that still needs to be in check get into the kind of large world positions in shanghai. >> but the really interesting problem because typically does, from what i've seen in the last expo, the relationship between the architecture and the content is not really synthetic necessarily. so the building doesn't necessarily represent what the inside it. and usually they are broken out into different people, different artists and architects doing the work. i think that this was a pretty unique -- that there was no

program, there was no need to represent anything particular. and shanghai, i think that is very much what's at stake, that every nation there is represented in terms of its technology's progress. and there's usually a show and each of these pavilions. this was a unique situation. i didn't see the u.k. pavilion. there's very little to see their but the space itself. so occasionally that happen when there's an understanding that the representation is not something that is really unuseful and perhaps on the wall and the best sense, architecture can be everything and could be the whole mission of the expo

project. and it has been in the past. even the crystal palace is a great example of that. it is a fantastic model of the self. so it need not have anything in it. and i think that expos are at their best. but i think there's a concept of a conference like this the edginess is always whose voices once began in this this kind of expos? if we were representing the state in the shanghai expo, we probably have some marching orders. and the question is will we choose to say and how would we negotiate our own voice with the voice of the culture from which we come. and i might say that the americans expo pavilion was on

the same league as a developing nation. we really had no distinction. it was very sad that way. and i very much wonder why the u.s. investment opportunities like that to allow artists to and others to be those cultural diplomats. >> let me move on to a building closer to washington. the reform is working on an inflatable state that will be put into the courtyard and i guess, besides other hersch won. and i'm wondering what is wrong but the hirsch lawn that needs a new space. what are you fixing? >> okay, sure to show up, the new director of the first one came in with an exuberant agenda. and the agenda exceeded the exposition. it was more than that. he really sides as a very

specific opportunity, that is nbc with an international audience that's here for maybe other reasons to see modern art grady very much wanted to expand the footprint, which is basically a square. it's a square partner with a doughnut building and executed the new floor. with a big hole in the middle. and who wanted to expand by 18,000 square feet for other kinds of act two days, other kinds of programs. so performing arts programs, lectures and debates and issues of cultural policy. and so he very much sees it as an educational space and the space of discourse. so with that said, we let that the building and we looked at the opportunities the buildings

had to expand and there was this incredibly alienating simple courtyard that is usually stuff a list. it would be interesting to blow up the baggie while richard was in our studio. why could she do something like this? and the air went up the finer about 18,000 square feet as it turned out and he said yes, that's it. stop there. and then it became the project. and so this is the lounge and this is the interior of the face that which can be controlled and could seat about 800 million people standing for different kinds of events. we saw this project frs again, size is everything. and the fact that it sits on the

mall and the mall is lined with these very stately buildings, it really take the question of what a contemporary intervention would be. and that bubble is called a seasonal structure, which is put up twice a year for a month at a time for these events. and we wanted something that is also historically sensitive. so we couldn't make it permanent, you know, any kind of permanent version. so the idea of a structure of air was obvious to us and more so that the side of the mall is a very important side of great speeches in great events and of public protests. and what we wanted to do with basically inhale the air from

the mall into the hirschhorn. and that was really the gesture. so it very much is an extension of that air and takes on really muscular building that is very oppressive. we happen to like some of this architecture that comes out of the 60's and 70's, but to somehow work with it and to play up the tension between a very lightweight structure and the very hard hovering mass of the hirschhorn. >> and the hirschhorn could have -- authority has the theater and it has a courtyard. to what extent does this and the way have to be a public expression to get the people into the building that the hirschhorn once? is it an offense waving a flag to attract people and? >> well, as it turns out, what we've been told, people don't

know what the hirschhorn is and it often comes here looking for the arab space. [laughter] and so, it is a kind of sign that something here -- something contemporary is here. but we enjoy the idea and i think richard very much enjoyed the idea of making this extra program outside of the walls of the institution and give it a presence, an architectural political presence. it's very hard to add elements. we know we were up for a fantastic mission for the national museum of african american history and culture, but it's an incredibly powerful and important side and to imagine how to build contemporary buildings and the context of that side and to pay

the right respects of context, but also to speak in a modern vocabulary -- contemporary vocabulary is a great challenge. >> that's another major project and it said fairly similar era in architecture, a large centralized campus for the arts. and you've been working out for a number of years to really radically change the way this relates to the cityscape in new york. and could you tell a sellable about what needed to change your? lincoln center is popular. its houses are packed. so what was their thinking? why mess with the campus at that point that it will have kind of earned its place in new york? >> one of the reasons lincoln center is nervous is that a teacher and are reaching the ages of 78, 80 and beyond and what can really bring a new audience to lincoln center.

the programming is really the most important thing. the transmission of the cultural programs that are there, to reinvent them, to reinvent music and opera and so forth. so have a big job ahead of them to do that. but they realize that there are many things that could be done. and we were brought into the project at a very early stage. it was seven years ago before the project was elaborated. and over time, it started small and over time it grew and grew. and these pictures were the original architects and planners. there's a lot of testosterone there. [laughter] were looking at this in a very different way. and were trying to do something

that is actually very, very difficult for architecture. and that is to overcome some of the openness -- some of the problems created at the time. this was planned in the 50's into the late 50's and 60's. it was for our sense of culture. there were huge groups of people that were displaced. tens of thousands of people who were displaced in many ways it was a very unpopular project. but from a new york citizen standpoint, it was also a popular art into and to turn it back on the neighborhood. and this is the main thing. you look around lincoln center on our intervention of total solid walls. what you see here is a fence all

the way around of mechanical plans and the garage and this is a large button south campus that create a 200-foot long shadow with 56 street really used only as a service report and for all sorts of service unintrusive. our mission was to turn the campus inside out, to bring the excitement of what's going on inside to the street and to bring people from the street into the houses. and it's a little bit hard to see here. this is a before and after shot. this is the old juilliard noting. and this is the expansion of juilliard. and this is that same building east facing broadway.

this is the new entrants into juilliard. the old entrance. you can see this in the shadow. you can see the big open public space and a lot of class. this is the view from inside the space looking up. the intention everywhere on campus -- the intention everywhere is to make accessible today, visually accessible to the adjustment programs where you don't need to pay for $300 seats for the mac. you can just go there and hang out. public spaces were pretty desolate here. fortunately you can't see our green roof which sits over at the destination right wrongs. we optimize all the space left. there is very little space. this is a green lawn that is on the top of the roof that is campus green. and there is -- it's kind of

useless to see. the whole frontage has been changed out. they are really monumental they are, that lincoln center should've originally had to work with a monumental modern affair. and each riser now has leds and it basically did materializes the very stare that we made, which is also very thin and acts as a bridge for the same road that now goes down to our global level. so the work here has been expanding and it includes public faces for three facilities of expansion and motivation as well as we did the piece for fashion week. and the work is very expensive.

but it goes to the core of dissolving the boundaries between the disciplines of urban design, architecture design and landscape. >> you spoke about the importance of this project of breaking down the monumentality of the space and especially disciplined. and i wondered about that in a culture where they may be of interest for someone like the new york city ballet is a different sort of backed dignity than dancing with the stars. is there a place for separation in a sense? enough, it even if you open up, is there a way to keep it elevated in some sense is not architecturally? >> yes. i think that the notion of elevating arts in this were a domain is a little like apocalypse. it's a little tiny hill. but it's definitely elevating for another place. but in fact, that other places

public space. and as long as the ability to break down those edges is they are, it can be both ends because in a sense it is -- this architectural is really big. it's for lots of people. and there's nothing wrong with that. it's actually pretty interesting thing. a lot of architectures in my generation hate that idea and would love to blow it up. and we prefer to just have used the dna on itself and think about all the places where that money monumental quality regulates lake at the central fund for the three major houses were around in how people come out to the porch. and at the whole fantastic scene like the paris opera. it's all about been seen with the backdrop of the

architecture. and we find that there is a fine line that could be walk by engaging with this kind of architecture, which is part of the very impersonal authoritarian scary, representing all the wrong things. and playing with it into the net. and now, the bubble is like that. it's playing with it and teasing it. it's reinventing it in a way on our terms. so we can touch it and we can use it and it's not meant to state desolate. >> do you think when we look back in 50 years, say the same timeframe as are looking back on the origins of lincoln center, what would be the aspects of our contemporary architectural practice that will seem as out of fashion in a sense of monumentality seems to us? >> of hard to speculate 50 years from now.

i'm sure that whoever is renovating lincoln center will be just crawling, wondering how it's going to make it or that people -- the new generation just doesn't get us. i don't know. i think that there were swings of culture of the populace times. i think that the political and socioeconomic condition of lincoln center is so different from when it was originally imagined, where everything was hot oil and everything had to be barricaded and the public was definitely not wanted. we are at a time where we really want that social engagement. the brink of centers trained very hard to make public programs outside its open spaces, the very notion of breaking down these hard walls is definitely part of my generation desire to break down

these institutions. we actually exchange and be of this work of the institution. it may backfire and we make it harder institutions later on 50 years from now that resist that. or we may get tired of all these places for people to hang out and you may have a very unproductive culture where everyone is socializing and no one is doing any work. >> i think it's time for us to turn to the audience and let them ask some questions. there should be mike's coming around. i think there is also one position player. so if you can wait till the mike comes to you or make your way to a microphone. there's a hand up over here. >> hi, elizabeth, i don't know if you said what year the swiss building was built.

the first one. >> 2002. >> 2002. so i'm wondering now with so much concerned about how we use our resources and energy, whether that would still, you know, just to build something for the artistic vision and for the experience how people would react to that when the show so much concerned about the environment and conserving resources. >> is a good point in a good question. when we built it, there was a stipulation that we would have it exactly the same way we found it. there was already an environmental issue they are. we could leave the whole. we couldn't leave artifacts. the results were stipulation

that some of the cost was to be -- was to ultimately be paid for by reselling and refocusing its bits and pieces. so in fact the novels were reused in this deal that it was made out of was reused. and the water evaporated into the atmosphere and fell down into the lake again eventually. i think that particular project was very green in its nature. but even if it had not, i often think that in our culture we think of art -- we think of art as a kind of extra, and access. you can only do when you have the resources to do it. and the hard times, it's the first thing to be cut. and i truly disagree with that.

i believe that this is as important, doing work, not necessarily hurt, but the ability to sponsor our art institutions an artist doing work is as important as the air we breathe and the water we drink. it's a resource. and it's a resource for thought that artistic art is regenerated in all different kinds of thoughts. so this notion of goodness that is a little bit, that sees things a little bit differently. america was far behind. and that seems to be changing. europe is starting to think like the states. and all that state sponsorship for art is now starting to go private. so it's interesting to see how things evolve. for architects and particularly sensitive to this because america is so young but there hasn't been a great culture of architecture in this country whereas in europe there has

been. and european offsets were very well supported and many, many projects that young firms can grow on the air. and that doesn't really happen here. so i would find them as culturally advanced, more advanced than the states. this seems like again things go in cycles and may have to do with the economy. >> its nonpaid bill. it's not just architecture, but opera and dancers and those to get the european cultural training to then come back and be ready to take on projects in the united states. we probably have to check you write there. another question? there's two hands. when he reappear. >> yes, i wanted to ask a little bit about boundary blurring within the organization you work with and within your own organization. the kinds of qualities that you are supporting and nurturing and your architectural projects are about you save boundary

blurring, spurring innovation, more openness. you prefer to work with organizations that show that kind of leadership and how do you as an organization work in terms of blowing your own boundaries? >> her studio began as an independent art studio and we have trained architects, but we stayed away from this kind of oriented projects from the beginning and invented our own projects. and we were very, very grateful to dr. macarthur, a foundation award because of our initial practice that helped hide an expression independently of permanent buildings, both on the stage and in museums, galleries and public spaces. we then started to do architecture an hour doing a lot of it. but if we see it as just one

strand of our work and our independent work continues in the theater and in art and media. in fact, we have a section of her studio that devoted to money-losing projects it's called in the red. but we try to balance things out and it's the only way i can imagine because of where we come from and the fact we have ongoing agendas of interest to find their way into these various projects are willing to do that. we've been very fortunate in that we've attract to clients in institutions that are like-minded and are very interested in the fact that where border crossers and particularly in museums. maybe museums are not set a good

example. museums do one thing. the fact we could see the world of museums from the artist standpoint and from the viewer standpoint and the institutional standpoint are very, very important. and our work in lincoln center, that place is made up of 12 constituent organizations that each do something different. feathers and music theater service nicd school and then there are two opera companies and there is a film society and so forth that are all different independence because of them. according to don shands, they do share the central mechanical plan. and we really thought to make the campus and making something we couldn't foresee, it's caused them to become synergistic. the original intention of being

in the same place at the same time. and there was competing for the same funding dollars in the same board members and so forth, that now there started to be programming together which is a wonderful thing. i wish there were more and more opportunities for cross cultural organizations and most of the collaborators that we work with come from our researchers from various categories. we continue to do that and we nurture that it would bring that into almost every project we do. >> another question? >> your proposal for the hirschhorn has received a fair amount of publicity. i say they were production. i see the image, but i don't understand what it is i'm looking at. could you explain the material? its durability. its capacity for bearing weight.

i'm just fascinated by those of the structure. >> okay. it's basically an inflatable structure like many of the time so as to seem better off all over. it's a low pressure pneumatic system were basically there's a tent that sewn together, are sewn in a particular pattern to make that configuration in the air is inserted. basically the fans are turned on and adjust rises. and as long as the fans are on, it'll continue to hold their shape. so it basically produces and have little space on the ground. it's how they are by cables on the interior, so that tbc teflon material that's very, very durable. it's been protected.

it was first used after world war i and then they got progressively developed after world war ii. but then got thousands of these things all the way. in the used largely for recreational structure. the way it works is that basically collapses when you move the air and it gets rolled up and then gets put into a warehouse until the next time when it gets brought out, vote out. kind of like the macy's parade balloon. those get filled with helium, but this is just a fan. the other tower uses water. so there's a link of water. so it's a very -- in the way i have to say well it's playful, it's also very respectable to the hirschhorn. it doesn't really touch it very -- there's just one restraint at the top that keeps

the tables for moving around. and so will be dynamic. it will move a little bit with the wind, but it's essentially stable. the party there will be good and it will have -- we're going to try to temper it to the exquisite policies. sometimes in those 10 assailants it's very at the we. but it was -- we feel it's the appropriate material to use for this kind of temporary structure. if there weren't that, it would probably be a structure sitting next hour but another version of the same thing, but this one is more imagined into the space. >> we've reached the end of the time we have. i'm sorry we don't have more time. i want to thank elizabeth diller very much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> were already and our first section on the most fundamental ideas about exploring the power of art in society. i love the notion of the ex-fundamental idea of art. it certainly is a collaboration of what i do in my life, so i'm cheered by that. this notion of the public symbolism and real impact of visual language, but also i guess very key to our world in washington d.c., the problematic of a modern architectural vocabulary and a more traditional national capital, but also a very interesting

exploration of the world's fairs, the expositions that have been so important over centuries, which were always scripted but they rather nationalistic vocabulary and instead the blur building at the swiss exposition introduce notions of indeterminacy and ambiguity, which are perhaps ideas more attuned to what we hope for in terms of the impact of art in the 21st century. now, i think we are making up. i want to introduce our next speaker and moderator. we'll be hearing from jim leach and for a couple.

let me see if i got that time perfectly. almost. wonderful. please join me in welcoming chairman leach and chairman hutzel. >> well, i think maybe i better hold this. if one thinks about relations of metrics, the contacts between general appreciate contacts. and when one thinks about imports of each, there are times that only government can deal with issues, often war and peace. for example i began a public career at the public peace talks. and that can only be government to government. but you cannot have sustaining good relations. any country in the world must have respect for each other's culture. and again if you think about the

big picture, government is a part of culture, not vice versa. and so come on you think of culture and respect, which go hand in hand with whether or not governments can really deal with each other in a good way, the main contacts between societies are ordinary people although they're not always ordinary. they can be extraordinary senses. whether they be artists, whether they be business people that are going back and forth between other societies. and when you think of mutual respect, is it a theory all he did or does it take some sort of human contacts? handshakes of understanding of one kind or another. and when you visualize -- i've been in dozens of dozens of embassies around the world, our representatives who i have enormous respect for and their professionalism as a general

rule only need a small part of a fourth populace. it's nongovernmental officials that do most of the contact. that doesn't mean that it's generally wise for nongovernmental officials to be attempting to conduct governmental relations. and sometimes impact that can be against the law. but it is seen at how officials can represent policy depends on how well people are respect to. that is really a similar aspect of culture and human interrelationships. >> i'd like to turn perhaps to another expression of yours and particularly geared initiative by the humanities endowment culture ground, where you hold or announce that the sharing of language comes the loss of

literature of art, history peoples is the most profound bridge between society. i wondered if he could tell a fellow that about what your goals are. >> in one sense, it turned bridging cultures is kind of tripe. in another sense, it's extraordinarily important aspect of domestic and world relations. all countries have a kind of a national culture. they also have a myriad of subcultures. we probably have more subcultures because for more cumbers with greater tradition of any country on the earth. and for immigrants have brought to our shores many different value systems. in fact arguably the field of culture and knowledge, with the greatest beneficiary of foreign aid any society ever created. but when we think of bridging cultures, and mean how we look at other societies, the

assumption is that knowledge is something that leads to tolerance. tolerance is an issue of our age or probably any age. and that doesn't mean that everything in the world should be tolerable. there are things that are. but the more intolerable a circumstance, the more important it is to understand. as far as the bridging culture initiatives at the institution i am fortunate enough to have you done that humanities, i look at it in a three-pronged way. one is bridging space. there's different geographic orders to certain cultural levels in certain levels and then bridging time. if you want to understand today's culture you have to look at prior cultures. history is a huge component. what we learn from more modern

history, whether it be in the middle east or in europe? and then also were lucky not does in a new kind of academic way where we are increasingly trying to bridge disciplines. it is there was a time. as disciplines emerged in academia. yet history departments and literature departments of philosophy departments and you're trying to combined various approaches and breach kind of ways to look at everything happening in the culture away. so we're trying to advance that giving and were modestly sized agency, but to the degree we are doing things, we had to bridge those kinds of courage, that kind of academic discipline. >> as to your unesco, you among

other things have a particular interest in this digital humanity. you notice a twittering world is a humanity place they made a neighborhood more likely to live with itself. i'm wondering if you could expand on that more in terms of social network. >> well, i made that statement with greater confidence than perhaps these is due. if you listen to modern sociologists and other countries of society, were tending to look and read viewpoints that more or less enforce higher understandings. and so one of the great questions is are we looking at the other as well as ourselves? and that means from every perspective of every country in the world.

and in some ways everybody is starting to know, whether it be american media where people are choosing to view fox disproportionately of one good and msnbc of another. and if you look at the world, you think we have -- maybe that's a little unfair analog, but people choose to look at things from a singular truth. what is also happening now and this is i think one of the great cultural divide in america that is really not been looked at as seriously as it should be. every citizen on earth has access to digital technology, meaning that new handheld devices of so many different dimensions that change with every generation to generation in the last two or three years or maybe two or three months, now has access to knowledge that

is extraordinary. and contemporary commentary that's extraordinary. they think of logs and sometimes we think of one sightedness. at their wonderful blogs out there of the greatest academics in the world talking about events that are going on instantaneously. and so, at the same time that newspapers are unfortunately being hit with these enormous financial difficulties, they're cutting off reporting globally and national reporting abroad, there's access of the american people and almost people of many, many societies. at least some people in all societies have a large number of societies that have access to a phenomenal amount of information when i use the term critic world, i really was inspired by

what i thought were very inspirational words. i think one of the great modern-day speeches of our time is the president of the united states, today's president to half of americans have strong approval for in less than half of last approval. we had to have greater respect between the religions and wouldn't it be wonderful if kansas could communicate correctly with the youth in cairo. and that is the meaning of modern communications. and when we think of a great metaphor that has been overused, but is every year it even more accurate about a shrinking globe, we are all everybody's neighbors now and a communicating sent. and that is a great question, whether these communications are going to need people having

greater understanding and coming together. and then as we all know, as the family we have reference fields them one might want. sometimes i'll point a little too closely together can create misunderstandings as well. and so my own view is that we're going to have to match the capacity to communication with the capacities of people that have greater knowledge and greater understanding as they communicate. and then were going to have to think through disability of it all dollar. and there's no denying the fact that in civil behavior is on the rise in some kinds of ways relative to certain other periods of american history, but by no means all periods of american history. we have had tougher times with language. the language matters. so the combination of

communicative devices with greater knowledge and the capacity to communicate can lead to much greater understanding in the world or it can lead to much greater misunderstanding. and i'm just going to include we have to understand ourselves, are we a society that for instance burns koreans as was suggested by a minister a few months back and is not been forgotten, but was very much alive as a content in some parts of the world. are we a country that wants to encourage new mosques. does that offend us? or is that something we welcome? these are the kind of decisions with the people people have to work through. it's interesting that sometimes strongly held conventions convictions can be uplifting.

sometimes they can appeal to baser instincts or less tolerant instincts. those are the choices we have an everybody else in the world house, too. [inaudible] >> -- in the sense of what can one do to encourage a more holistic back and forth that isn't raised on a narrow premise? >> i think that's good encouragement. [inaudible] >> all right. let me turn to the british council -- director of the north american british council. the british council brought to washington recently is about to move on to minneapolis and extraordinary set-aside they told british and american playwrights of the great game.

i recommended it to all of you. you can see the new york after the first of november. and she says in one of the publications that during times of war, artists help us remember if we knew each other more, we might damage each other last. and there is also a line from one of the plays by the procommunist groups, najibullah presets my country has been imagine enough. my country is foreign imagining. my question to you, sir, is how can cultural diplomacy halt bridge the imaginings of ourselves and others? >> well, first of all, i want to fractionally rephrase this because imagination is a wonderful thing, that putting yourselves in the shoes of somebody else is probably greatest invention of the step we have to make if we want to have a better world.

but i think the implication of these imaginings is a false impression of false attempts or false actions and that's a very different thing. if you think of humanities, history, literature, philosophy. and the abstract, nothing is more important in the sense that if you read a big novel, what did we ought to? we put ourselves in the shoes, one of the kerry years or we look at one of these cared tears and we learn something from what we think are cared for his mistaken steps. ..

>> when you go to the presentation, that you referred to, the whole notion of looking at the human setting through plays, or drama, and then drama set very importantly in a historical setting. it's something that is obviously a way of looking at the world. and then you come back and we think of the united states. we can clearly with this series of plays was aimed at was a critique, a political judgment at a moment in time. meaning our time, and our foreign policy. one thinks, what if every member

of congress and every member of the executive had studied thoroughly the implications of the soviet capacity to control afghanistan, the british history in afghanistan, the french history in algeria, and then you think further. we think of realism as might. but it's so clear there's an aspect of realism. but there's also an aspect of realism that's the human condition. and of pope in rome, a playwright in czech slovakia, and minor labor leader stood down the soviet tanks. what does that mean? power is important from a military point of view, but power that's not infused with cultural judgment is lacking. i've noticed over the last year or so, david petraeus, our

commander in the field in afghanistan has been making that precise point. that you have to understand the cultural setting if you are going to be successful. now as i look back and i want to tell you a statistic that it's truly one that is inject choral. because no one took the survey. but it's one that sat through the debate in the house of representatives in the united states and the people's house on the authorization and use force against iraq. i don't think 10% of the congress at most knew that there was a distinction between the sunni and shiite. i'm sure the public didn't either. we've never looked at things this way. and yet there was a fair amount of writing that has been done on the subject, but it hasn't seeped in. then very interestingly, if we take our own society, we have a large number of muslim

americans. there's not a single muslim-american that didn't understand these distinctions, and what might explode with our invasion of iraq. but there's no communication back and forth of any significant variety. and so it's one of these things that when we think of judgment, what we need for judgments. i talked to a group a month or so ago at georgetown university of students from the university of cairo, and from the university of georgetown who were in the exchange largely from a philosophy and theological background. anyway, i gave a bit of a talk. and change of questions. last question was the young cairo student said to me, mr. leach, what do you think is the most important thing to study? i said what do you think? he said clearly it's comparative religion. if you understand other people's religion, why they think as they

do, maybe we'd have less conflict in the world. i'm thinking to myself, that's one the wiser things i've heard in my travels around the country over some period of time. and then it made me think when i was young there was a speech given in the state of iowa. i didn't hear it, but i read it. and many of you remember that winston churchill in the 1954 gave a speech at folton, missouri at westminster college, he coined the phrase iron curtain. another came to grinell college in iowa. he gave a speech that no one paid attention to. he was considered the greatest historian. he chastised russians thinking that all of the economic deterrence in the world, and he

chastised americans because we're in the middle of a rights movement for thinking the great division in the world was great. he said you americans will get over this period. you are going to do the right thing, it'll take you a while. but it'll happen. but he said the great conflict likely to occur in the next couple of generations will be religion-based. that seemed out of context with the times. part of the reasons for the context was that in general in our history we had some great divisions. afterall, we started that one out. we had 11 of the 13 colonies had at one point or another an established church. we had anti-catholicism. not with the same implications of germany, but not unreal.

we have progressed. from an american perspective, that seemed unwise observation. if we look at events today, it seems precious. all i'm suggesting is it is important to look at the other in very different ways, and some of them right down to religion. >> no question about that. i'm going to carry on if i could one other question that related to the great game. it's the equivalent of the chief of staff in great britain. it was also the senior military commander in afghanistan. it has urged all of his commanders to see the great game, just as our admiral mullen has urged, not urged, made required reading for officers deploying to afghanistan the greg mortonson book, "the three

cups of tea." what can neh, nei, and government generally, do to encourage military commanders and also policymakers to think through the imaginings of others at the part of the policymaking and policy execution process? >> well, first, the three institutions that frank has talked about are wonderful institutions. we are fairly small. and we do work in a variety of ways. and i really don't want to relate it to the three institutions as much as i want to relate it to this judgment of the body of politics as it interrelates with the government itself. and it strikes me all of us in our own minds when we thought of the military strategies, we think of things like the civil war. there's a great confederate general who says that all

strategy is who has the mostest? in a way that's the powell doctrine. overwhelming force, that's a doctrine. we also have to recognize that's a very important part of military strategy. but it isn't the whole thing. and the whole thing has to involve some sort of cultural understanding. sometimes when people -- and it's only in modern times that people have thought this way. you get some strategic concepts like well, before we go to war, we ought to have somewhere in mind an exit strategy. that's a really important thought. it's kind of un-american thought in the sense that we didn't have any experience with that problem because the major wars that we had been involved in world war i, world war ii, had a natural ending. and they just ended. we never thought it was more difficult to stop a conflict than to start a conflict.

because we were on the whole in our history a bit reluctant to go to war. now the spanish-american war might be a bit of an exception. especially if anyone reads the new book by evan thomas on -- talks about some of the great leaders of the time. but if we think of culture, and we think if you tie it into the strategy, is it wise culture to not protect sacred types if one goes to war? is it wise in the military strategy if we are going to move into a period of -- containment of a population. that means occupation, which is a word that we don't like to use. but the other sides certainly do. one the questions comes up is occupation tolerable? and for what period of time is there a -- is it the same thing

as a house guest one might welcome but after a time, the whole analogy to the dead fish comes in. but these are questions that people have to ask in a very deep, cultural way. when we look at history and cultures, the desire peoples to control their own destinies and make their own mistakes, design things the way they want to design them is very hard. you would use what is an analogy that's a very slight one. because at the institution that i had, the national endowment for humanities, we have a relationship with 50 state humanity councils. all independent. although we helped fund it. each one makes totally different decisions than each of the other states. and they design things for their states in how they are a little bit different.

alabama being different than wyoming. wyoming being different than iowa. iowa different than new york. well, if you have that much difference within this great cohesive society, then you think of the differences between the united states and france. and then the difference between the united states and afghanistan. and then if you think of history and the concept of intervention, what is the most well received and historically vindicated decision of modern times? i will tell you what i think it is. it was dwight david eisenhower in backing the british and the french out of suez. eisenhower said the era of columbia intervention is over. he understood the times. that doesn't mean there isn't a time in place the united states isn't going to be obligated to use force somewhere in some

time. how we use it, what kind of methodology, what kind of exit policy demands a cultural framework that goes beyond do we have the most discipline forces, the bravest troops? now we as a country can be very proud that our troops in combat haven't really lost a single engagement. but one the great questions becomes has the political judgment and high minded and as thoughtful as the sacrifice we are asking people to make. that's something in society that we have to come to grips with. >> another question that occurred to me i was recently at the institute of pete and heard maria emma wills who's a columbian lady, the chairman of the historical memory commission in columbia, who makes the point

that the really important thing, at least to her, is the memories that the people, not just the written history. and, of course, the national endowment for the humanities supports history. my question to you is how do you feel about memories and communities and stories in relation to written history? >> first there's no society that doesn't have a say that doesn't say something to the effect if you don't study the past, you are more likely to repeat a past mistake. we're also in totally unprecedented times. so there's ans aspect of the pat that looks at things in a little different way. sometimes the past can be misleading. in terms of memories, the intriguing thing is every society is a little bit different. we're a very young society. and at our best, we really think pragmatically. some other societies reason by historical analogy a lot more

than we do. a brit might say the strategy that lord nelson under took, did that have relationship to what we might do. it's no accident that world war ii that churchill will have one majestic strategy. which was to get american involved in the war. that's helped by the japanese. and the german declaration. but his tactical strategy was a geographic one. he wanted us to -- he wanted the west to invade in all sorts of small spots in the under belly of europe. whereas, dwight david eisenhower was rationalizing a lot more for us. and by the way of the overwhelming course doctrine was most symbolically in the american history deployed on d-day. and the defense that within

three or four weeks we had war arms and equipment ashore than the german's had. and it was all military doctrine in terms of force being used, it's about logistics. ike was an old fashioned american and expert. that was his circumstance. now in terms of memories, we also don't carry as a whole intergenerational grudges. and some other societies have intergenerational memories that are really of stark importance. and our last president learned something that we all sympathize with them. we as a people didn't understand as deeply as it was held abroad. he casually in one speech used the word crusade.

we have a crusade to stop such and such. the word crusade as the meaning in the muslim world that doesn't relate to king arthur in and the nights in the cheerful way that we look at king arthur. for many, particularly radical muslims, the crusades are a living history. that's -- well, by centuries, in fact, the millennium in age. and that's worth thinking about that memories go that deep and that far. and then they also if we contrast ages, there was the age that we in west called the dark ages. that's when the muslim world went right. and so there were three or four centuries where muslim science and muslim human -- humanities were outracing europeans.

the muslim world is conscience. and so memories are extraordinary in their importance. and then from an important point of view, when you think memories, you think in a way and probably more than any other society, we're kind of genealogy conscious. the aspect of genealogy, it's very important in a family. nobody in our country gives a hoot about anybody else's family. we don't think of that sociologically. in our memories, it's important for kids to know the roots. we don't make the roots into something that we carry over. we are proud if we had a horse racer in the family or whatever. you have characters that are large and characters that are

small. and that's the american mix. and so one aspect of memory issue is to have the important with us and also have it with an understanding that others look at memories very differently. >> and they also change. one of the things that has occurred to me is that, you know, politics are about memories. and they are about things that people grow up with. because ultimately, it is not necessarily what you learn in school, it is the sort of the nature of the neighborhood, the nature of the upbringing and so on and so fort. how does one bridge that to use your verb? >> i think one has to bridge it with a lot of respect. and also to realize that there's a word called myth. and myth can be very, very large

in life. in fact, the first historian of the western world is considered to be aronmis. was he the first in the world or not? history had a lot of myth? others say that lusidimus was. he was a chronicler, a reporter of history. you get the bridges between myth and reality. and sometimes myth can be truly uplifting, and sometimes not so uplifting. look at the past president, i always think it's better to look at the better sides of them. and then there are a few that there are other lessons to be derived. and you have ways of looking at the world that are nonpresidential.

and we have a feeling in congress that things are broken down to the greatest that's ever been the case. and that is the case. on the other hand, that doesn't mean things aren't broken down to a far greater extent than it should be. we have to think that through too. >> fair enough. i think the time has come to open this up. to people in the audience. there are microphones. who would like to address a question to chairman leach? i see two hands. if you want to go to the microphone or you bring in the microphone. oh, the microphone goes in. good. [laughter] >> thank you very much. as we are all part of the human family, i'm curious speaking of bridging gaps and solving problems, what's the neh is doing to help achieve the millennium development goals. >> well, that's a good question. and i want to be very careful. because we are not an advocacy

agency in the sense of neh doesn't go around saying we support health care reform, or we object to health care reform. and that's a very different phenomenon. in terms of the development goals, i think from a historical perspective, that's an important thing to do. as an institution, we are not as economics oriented as we should be. but as a general proposition, all i can tell you is that we don't have a lot of scholarly work in that area. partly because others are more likely to do it. but i don't know of any judgmental objection or advocacy of the developing goals as an

institution. i certainly as an individual who heads an institution identify with it very strongly. but i don't resume that that is an institution policy. that would be improper. in fact, if you look -- and let me just go one step beyond it. you've raised two issues. one is economics, and one is appearance. implicitly when you talk about the millennium development goals. take our times economically, there's fairly a case at the family level, city, state, federal level to be concerned with the amount of debt that we hold up. and that a conservative approach to spending is credit call. a liberty concern with those left out and what considered a economic concern for increasing

productivity with some government stimulus also has a credible case. what comes together is to make these judgments. and in these judgments, also where the millennium development goals fit in. we are a poorer society than we were seven or eight years ago. about 25% poorer based on stock market and housing evaluation. then based on currency relationships, which leads to some parts of the world. one the great judgment calls for the american public again is how you meet some legitimate concerns with legitimate liberal concerns with legitimate concerns with priorities in the world. and you've got what the nature of politics is all about. and the great question becomes can you resolve these with respect?

for all sides. can you resolve them in such a way that government itself operated effectively? because there can be breakdowns in governance. and so this is something that we as a society have to balance. >> then we'll go to the back. >> first of all, i like to thank you. when you talk about diplomacy, you bring it down to the most human level. bridges space, time, and interdisciplinary subject matters. i'd like to ask you a question, i'm a product, like many people in washington and around the united states of a benefit of international exchange through fellowships like the fulbright, like rotary, that not only bridge that space, they have you breaking meals, sitting down with people, they give you access to objects and analysis

side by side with another scholar. and as we see at the smithsonian, we have a tremendous amount of objects in access. how do we bridge that gap? we've been doing it with the art and sciences. i guess when i look to the future, where is the funding going to come? i see a country like china where museums are built hand over first. i see other countries in europe reaching out to them, very headlights -- very little from the u.s. unless it's from commercial sources. what kind of new model, especially given now generation of people here in my age, comes into positions of leadership who had the powerful exchange experiences and want to see it go beyond the traditional places into new things. >> well, this is a dilemma that

we have. cultural diplomacy is done with fulbright and the greatships, as you -- great scholarships, as you mentioned. it isn't that alone. if you think about students traveling and studying abroad, and students studying here. they bring foreign students here, as well as send american students abroad. there's an awful lot of that taking place. and unfortunately, we've had a bridge period of largely with concern because the terrorism that we put some tougher rules in place for students entering this country? we have a national interest if we are going to compete in the world and context of which to

advance commerce and american ideals. one way is for us to have students study here. that goes way beyond fulbright, way beyond rotary. then we have likewise a great case for our students studying aboard or academics working ahead. i think the role of this has never been greater. we are going to have to do this aggressively. it's intriguing, other countries are starting to compete. australia, for example, is looking at a very wisely taking on many more foreign students as an economic development program for australia. and if you think of the notion of trade, for example, we make widget here, sell it to another country, that's positive, and wise versa, it's considered on the negative ledger of trade. exports versus imports.

there's no export that's more advantageous to us than the import of foreign students studying at our universities. most of them pay their own way today. if we export a widget, the chances are it has foreign components. i mean and so it's -- this is a one to one thing. and so as a society, we ought to not only be encouraging the fulbright and rotary programs, we ought to be encouraging to seek students and the come up with ways and techniques. the other thing, as much as i am an enormous advocate, for example, of smithsonian, nea, neh, lesser known by tremendous organization, imls, which is the student museum and library. the private sector does far more. we are a country in which

private sector actions are much bigger than governmental. you take all of the museums in america with the vast majority are local. if you take all of the libraries in america, they are local. if you take all of the universities in colleges, they are state and local. and so at the governmental level, we inping, we do not dictate. we hope to do it at the highest level. i consider full bright one of the greet emblems of the wise american domestic and policy. let me include one aspect to this. we sometimes think it's foreign policy is what we do abroad and what people preach abroad. but if, for example, you take the muslim world, arguingly the most important foreign policy thing we do is to make sure that we treat well muslim american

citizens. because every citizen in the muslim world has some sort of relationship or knowledge of someone from their country and our country. and so how we treat foreign students, how we treat american st. st. citizens, from the background is a seminal significance. and we have to think in those terms. >> well, thank you very much, jim leach, for a marvelous. i'm afraid i'm going to have to cut it off. we are running over time. i'd like us all to give chairman leach a hand. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> congress returns on monday. when members come back, they expect to work on the bush era tax cuts, as well as federal spending for the next budget here. you can watch the senate live

here on c-span2 and the house on c-span. new york congressman charlie rangel easily won reelection to his 21st term. before he's worn in for the 112th congress, he faces an ethics trial. that's scheduled to begin monday at 9 a.m. and could last several days. we'll have live coverage of the hearing started monday on our companion network, c-span3. republicans won control of the u.s. house in the 2010 midterm elections. with many g.o.p. candidates campaigning against the new health care law. today the alliance for health reform and the robert wood johnson foundation co-hosted a panel discussion looking at how the new republican majority might change health care policy going forward. speakers included the official, as well as the former top health care advisor, bill frist. here's a little bit of what they

had to say. >> i think the medical device tax points out two interesting, sort of broader questions. i think that become issues that republican leadership is going to have to grapple with. one of which is, you know, how do these -- how do any attempts to change the bill, at all, how are they positioned? so, you know, i think that republicans and the democrats will be probably less successful by portraying that as something that's going to help the individual industry by relieving a burden from devices or other folks. as i sort of applied earlier, a number of the industry fees and the device taxes is one of the clearer examples, that i think, can be portrayed as things that are going to increase the cost of underlying products and, therefore, translating to higher, as opposed to lower. that's one the goals of the

bill. how that kind of vote and others get in position is really important. the other thing is we don't completely know yet. and norm and john may have a view of this. in the past under at least republican control for many tax cuts, pay as you go budget rules generally did not apply. it'll be interesting. when you look at the republican caucus now and house and senate, to me, it's unclear. will they say they have to pay for tax cuts or not. if they don't and say hold the sort of traditional republican view of paygo, which we have to pay for new spending, but tax cuts are returning money to the american people. if they don't have to off set those, i think it makes it easier to have a vote that pulls over some democrats to reduce the impact of those fees. but one thing we didn't -- none of us talked about was none of

the overriding messages coming out of the election. we saw it earlier this week with an initial proposal is going to have to be balanced against all of the things that might need to be offset potentially? >> do you think the republican rule changes that are now under consideration are going to make it easier to do that? is that what you are alluding to? >>iven't been privy to that. >> yeah opinion they are talking about their own sort of -- first of all, an adeptation of the you cut plan. they will take advice from callers and listeners around the country. they are clearly not going to have a paygo that includes revenue. now in the end you reconcile that with your desire to reduce deficits and debt remains a big question on the table for

republicans. and it's a question that now has brought into full relief as have some of the issues over social security and medicare, of course, by the chairmans mark of the deficit commission. alan simpson has put some issues out there that are creating the substantial level of discomfort in both parties. >> and if you raise your, well, we have someone here now. >> hi, i'm julia mcdowell. i'm the editor of the college of american pathologist. can we talk a little bit about how the new congress, how you see the new congress dealing with the physician payment sgr issue? >> well, i'll take a crack at this since this is one of our top priorities to reassure seniors that they will have conditioned access to their physicians. and we certainly hope that the lame-duck on a session will tackle this. it's an area where because it's

have new spending will probably have to be offset elsewhere. i think the only reason that i'm not more confident of the results is not because of the desire to extent the sgr, it's about the offset and how possible it would be to go forward. we are pushing very hard to get congress to act very quickly on this. because they need to be something by the end of november in order to prevent disruption? >> you know, the democrats in congress now in a lame-duck are going to be tempted to kick this can off into january. precisely for the reason that john mentioned. they can't just will the it drop. because it brings it something close to catastrophe for physicians and for access in comes months. but i think they'd rather leave

the very difficult choice, because there will be a paygo decision on spending for what to do with a substantial sum of money for the republicans and the house to deal with. >> you can watch that program about the new congress and the health care law in it's entirety in about an hour and 20 minutes here on c-span2. that'll be starting at 8 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend, c-span3 american history tv visits the eleanor roosevelt papers project to learn how the first lady used the media. we'll see how very different thinking american and british leadership worked together to defeat the nazis. then a conference marking the 150th anniversary of the civil war, on the experience of enslaved and free during the war. then a day long symposium from the national archives as the

historians discuss the impact of the war. american history tv all weekend every weekend on c-span3. >> c-span2, one of c-span public affairs offerings. weekdays, live coverage of the u.s. senate. and weekends booktv. 48 hours of the latest nonfiction authors and books, connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. and sign up for schedule alert e-mails at c-span.org. >> we go now to a forum hosted by the aspen institute in washington, d.c. last month. in 2009, neh launched the culture initiative. which is how they have influenced the american society. this is an hour and 15 minute. >> that is better than they did

in the previous session. this is also because the precision of the recording that we are trying to achieve, we won't be passing the audience microphones. we will keep them in the stands and when you pose your questions we'll ask you to go to the microphone in the corridor. i want to introduce mr. dr. azar nafisi. she's an author and scholar. we know her because of the book we love so much. michael dirda is the senior editor for the "washington post." without further ado, join me in welcomes the next speakers. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you. before we go any further, can you hear me all right? is this good? how about in the back? signal wildly if you can. >> we're having a verizon moment. can you hear me? can you hear me now? [laughter] >> thank you all for coming to listen in to our conversation about cultural diplomacy. first of all, i want to start off by asking azar what she was doing in minnesota before i came here in morning. i e-mailed her she said she was in minnesota giving a talk. what were you talking about? >> i'm sorry. i was sort of making signs with dana. >> take this off. >> i can take this off. sorry. >> now no one will now where earn. >> much better for me, huh?

>> cover your tracks. anyway. you were in minnesota giving a talk. what were you talk abouting? >> minnesota, i was talking about who's going to bailout imagination and thought. and in minnesota, i was talking about who's going to bailout imagination and thought. >> what do you mean bailout imagination and thought? >> you know, bailout is the trendy word to use. even sachs 5th avenue asks for a bailout. how much attention are we paying to the attitude, perception, the passion that makes this country move forward. i mean i don't think that we're in an economic crisis. i think we are nearly living in a crisis of vision. economic crisis is part of that. so we the people have to have a national conversation about that.

>> this conference is cultural diplomacy. what does cultural diplomacy mean to you? >> sometimes i think culture and diplomacy don't really go hand in hand. because culture, essentially means, the seeing the world through the alternative eyes. seeing the world even seeing yourselves and questioning yourselves the way that you have never seen yourself or questioned yourself. diplomacy sometimes is all about, you know, trying to see yourself in the conventional way. so it's a contradiction in terms, but it's a very necessary contradiction in terms. i think that the real cultural diplomacy means two things simultaneously. one, curiosity. you need to be curious about the others in a genuine way, not

just lip services. and at the same time offer something that make other people feel curious about want to know about you. once you have the curiosity, then you have what chairman leach was talking about. which is the ability to put on someone else's shoes and walk around in them. which is empty. cultural diplomacy from my point of view of is simultaneous occurring of curiosity and empathy and connection to the others as well as the other insiders. >> there seems to me will be a condescension in the deep cultural diplomacy, in what we would call our desire to perhaps americanize the world, versus seeking a more cosmopolitan

global. you grew up in iran and america. you regard yourself as iranian, and american. >> as a writer, i consider myself sort of homeless in a way. you know, hannah aaron always talked about the writer always be the prior. the stranger. you need to be the strange. i always remember what theodore used to talk about, the highest form of morality is not to feel hope at your own home. that's the good idea. not to feel too much at home. having said that, i was uplifted many times in my life beginning at the age of 13. and being uprooted, leading everything that you call home, this is full of anguish and pain. it's the kind of anguish and pain and longing that you feel about your first love. that you constantly tried to

retrieve, you know, and it's always within your reach and not, you know? but what i learned at that age, even, was that the only way i can have a home is through the portable home of imagination. always i can have a home that's neither tyranical government that neither the flood could take away from me. is to create a home of imagination based on preservation of memory. at the same time, carrying the best they can offer. so it becomes your home. >> i grew up in a working class in ohio. my desire was not to feel not at home, but to feel at home in the world, no matter where i might find myself. it would not be -- i would not just be the kid from ohio, but

different cultures and feel at ease on some degree. it seems to me that cultural diplomacy is a lot about what andre melrow used to say, the museum without the wall. we should expand our horizons. we should read more widely, more deeply. it's, in fact, in some ways the failure of american diplomacy, at least cultural diplomacy, people aren't reading enough. aren't reading deeply and widely enough? how many people in the room know anything about images? we don't ask you to answer that. >> one down here. because he does. >> would you? >> main article. >> i know. thank you. that's a good point. you are reading lolita in tehran. should we have the blind owl in

washington, d.c.? >> definitely. you shouldn't have asked this question. i might never shut up. >> please. >> please do control me. with the two aspects of this, once when you talked about your childhood, you know, higher. and i immediately remember that one of my favorite books, which is winesberg, ohio. you know, someone this morning, sidney harman, someone talked about maxwell. i was immediately thinking of sherwood. both of them should be celebrated in a place like this. from very early childhood, i learned and talked about it in my recent book. i learned that, you know, we live in the realm of the real. and in that realm, there's very little that we can control. we don't control what country

we're born. we don't control even what name we are given, what language we first speak. but there is that other realm which is the realm of imagination. where you do two things, one, you have control. because you talk about reality and you read about reality from a perspective other than the one that is quote, unquote imposed on you. but at the same time, i learned my fathers views to bring me -- make me feel the world through the imaginary map. and the imaginary map and guides which were books. i first discovered about iran through my father tells me stories by the great epic poets, who by the way, the year 2010 is his 1,000 year birthday. and what he did, it was by the

arabs in the 7th century and 11th century. which was an amazing rerival of the culture and poetry. so the mittology, of tehran, and to the invasion. so the return it was, a sense of our history, and our identity. our father alwaysed used to tell my father and i, this was an ancient country. but what gives the country name? what makes us iranian was the poetry. he had no prejudiceses. if you are a woman who's born in a muslim-majority country. and of course, if you are a woman, you can't help it. as soon as you come here, they tell you two things. you are lucky. you are coming here at a good time, because you are a woman, you can go into woman studies,

and you can write about them. i said no, you go into woman studies. i want to write about dead white men. because the whole idea, the whole idea of the equality, the whole idea of equality is based on the ability for us as the others to speak to one another, off of one another, and about one another. and not be categorized. because this republic where my father showed me at the beginning, it was come -- composed of pinnochio, the jerk tom sawyer. we had hans christian, it was that that transcended the

nationality, ethnicity, gender, and race. we need such republic. we need to be able to transcend our little nooks and crannies that we have for one another. these were the two things that i learned that the world is my home once i start reading, donte, ellisson, hurstton, and once i come to phoenix, i forget to tell you the added bonus to coming to this was coming to the phillip museum. i wrote both of my books here. i would go to the cafeteria up there. it used to be a very small one downstairs. which was difficult to work in. now it is a wonderful, wonderful cafeteria. i would go off, take a look at my favorite painting, come down, write, go up. the only complaint that i have

against "the washington post." >> you have a complaint against "the washington post"? >> definitely. you closing down the book column. >> oh. >> it was one of the most tragic -- it was, you know, that was what gave me a sense of community. i got to know you and maryann, and all of your colleagues, not because i knew you. but i knew something good was waiting for me in the weekend. i feel very deprived. >> that said, we all regret the loss of book world. but there are still book reviews. we should be grateful that the paper does believe in the importance of literature as it does in art, music, and the coverage of culture in general. so it does exist. >> i appreciate it.

i think harman should take over the book world. bring it back to us. bring it back to us. it's all fine with music. about the nation's capitol? let's thinking culture. it's not all about the politicians who are rather boring. i don't know how many. but what phillips, the only complaint that i have is when they did go for the recent book, which is great, and i loved the interview, i asked them to do the photograph for my favorite places. places that gave me something. they very generously guided us and gave them up their time. and "washington post" did not write that this was a phillips museum. that was the most important part of that paragraph. not me, but the staircase of

phillips. >> i will say a few praises as well. right now it's hosting art for my college, oberland college. you can see many of the greatest paintings and art work here because of the phillips generosity. now that we've said enough about the phillips. this is simply a form of comparative literature. we should all be reading more globally from the cultures, and that that will develop simply to the experience of reading, greater understanding, tolerance, sympathy for cultures and people of different backgrounds. is that the way? >> well, you know, first of all, culture, diplomacy, it's something that i do believe in very, very deeply. we cannot pay lip service.

what is happening about the whole i see your pain thing about other culture, this is a mental way of looking at them is very dangerous. we have -- i mean literature is all about truth. and truth is always about taking a risk. it's like that little girl, alice, you jump down the hole without asking any questions. and we have to jump down that hole without the others. and our dialogue with others should not be paying lip service to them using them as children almost are, you know, you have a beautiful culture. but genuinely understanding the culture. you understand it through going to the art and music and food and literature. let me give you an example about iran. i came here in 1993. -- 1997.

i came from the society where the regime had taken away, it either killed people or killed them by taking away their history. the sense of identity. monopolizing their culture and taking away their voices. for me, coming here is -- you know, a miracle. because i could express myself freely. become myself again. and what i find out that the two camps usually. people that understand culture. but their attitude is the same. first they reduce all of the amazing countries that until the islamic revolution in iran in 1979, had their particular identity and name. you in literature know how important it is to give every single entity it's name. so countri