artist to wait a little bit. that was a cause however one has to be cautious. sometimes you go into the studio and see something radically new that you don't understand and understanding might bring a negative reaction where that breaks your body of work. i learned to tread lightly. sometimes you show a body of work you don't feel absolutely great about and the audience passes judgment and then both you and the artist. >> rose: brill and zwimer when we continue. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> this is an historic day for a good reason. it's been a long time coming, but today americans who have been forced to go without insurance to now visit healthcare.gov and enroll in affordable new plans that offer coverage. >> rose: steven brill is here. inside "time" magazine is code red, the team that figured out how to look it. it takes a look at the obama administration's healthcare website and tells the story of the technology experts brought in to rescue the site. that team consulted silicon valley consultants, google engineers and the whiz kids behind obama's own re-election campaign. in the space of weeks they turned around healthcare.gov. and in the process it saved the president's legacy. i am pleased to have steven brill back at this table. welcome. let me begin with this question. how did you come to this story. you already written a cover story about healthcare, i think the long else cover story in the history of "time" magazine if i remember. >> people are still trying to make their way through. >> rose: i thought it was pretty clear. and then come to this story, cover story of "time" magazine. tell me what brought you to the story and what were you in pursuit of. >> well, what i decided to do over the summer, i went back to time and i said listen the government's about to launch the most complicated ambitious new program arguably since medicare or social security. what about an inside story how they're doing it. >> rose: before launch. >> before launch. i started in july and august. here's what happened. the if you are rowfned of interviews i did in washington were people at the department of health and human services at cms which is the medicare agency that was supposed to be in charge of the website and with people at the whitehouse. almost as a conversation started with each of these interviews, maybe a dozen of them say well whose in charge of this thing. i really didn't listen very carefully to the answer. i got back on the train, i'm going to new york, i'm reading my notes and i had gotten 12 different answers for who was in charge. i got home that night and i said to my wife i think this thing is in big trouble. >> rose: if you asked the president would he have known he was in charge. >> he said he was in charge. >> rose: did you ask sebelius. >> she was in charge. and the head of cms was in charge. the had head of communications and marketing at the whitehouse, they said they were in charge. and there was really nobody in charge. but i kept on the story. but then of course on october 1st, i realized i had a very different story which was by then, by the first week in october, every media outlet in the world was writing stories about how the launched had failed which it had. i decided i was going to do a story about how or if they're able to fix it and that's what this story is about how they fixed it. the most interesting thing was in those first two weeks the president on october 17th directed his top people to bring experts and decide the first thing, which was should we scrap it. >> rose: the question was raised do we start over. >> that was the lead question. it was the just written, that was the first question. they had so little information, the thing was failing so miserably. as the article points out all different ways it was failing. the first question was is there any way we could save this thing. >> rose: define how bad it was is, on you miserablably it was failing. >> let's a scene where the chief of staff, denis mcdonough leaves the whitehouse and goes to baltimore which is where cms is. >> rose: what's cms. >> center for medicare and medicare services. he goes there and he tries to pry out of his staff what's going on. the only thing he's able to figure out, the only piece of data is that they say that maybe three out of every ten people who log on can even get on to the site. once they get on, there are all these bugs that are kicking them off. the first day, october 1st, there were eight people, which was a miracle of the eight people got through. he comes back and tells the president this looks pretty bad and the president says we have to decide whether we're going to scrap it or not. so other than that, they had no information -- >> rose: a bald decision. >> they didn't even have something called a dashboard which is a set of controls if you're running a website, how travel issue, who is on which pages, which pages are failing, what products are they selling. nobody had a dashboard. they couldn't give them any of that information. >> rose: all right. so they then say we need help. where do they go find the help. >> a lot of different places, but basically the same community. but one of the places they started is with alums of the obama campaign. the whiz kids who had by all accounts reengineered election day politics by so finely sitting data and targeting voters and figuring out what they were doing that they completely overwhelmed the republicans on that side. so there were a group of people who had formed a company in chicago who worked in the obama campaign. in which the lead and only investor is eric schmidt, the chairman of google. the whitehouse reaches out to them. now ironically the whitehouse had reached out to them during the summer but to do something very different. to do, to use the data to target and market people to get them to enroll. the principal tension, the principal fear that the whitehouse had, and that the press had actually, was when they launched on october 1st, would anybody come to the website. no one was really talking about well if they came, what's going to happen to them. so now they had to go to the other side of the house with this company and find the technologists who actually had built all of the data system that they had. and they parachuted into washington they thought they would stay for two or three days and make an assessment and in most cases they worked through december. >> rose: worked through thanksgiving day. >> yes, worked through thanksgiving day. the first reaction was this stuff has so many obvious mistakes in it that there's so much low hanging fruit that they can fix quickly that they think they can fix it. for example, this kind of software wasn't talking to that kind of software. there were all these things they could do and the people who were doing it were the people who had worked at google, at twitter, at e-bay who had run into problems as those companies had grown. and knew how to fix these thing. >> rose: who should have been fired. >> who should have been fired? >> rose: yes,. >> the person that's responsible is the president of the united states. this is one of the many things he does albeit an important one. i think you have to ask yourself what the chief of staff was doing other than just having people tell him everything's okay. he seems like a very nice guy has a good reputation for competence and all that. the in retrospect the simple fact is if something's so important why wouldn't he take the president's advice. the president according to mcdonough, every planning meeting he had before the launch, he would say to the whitehouse staff, this is all great but none of it matters if the technology doesn't work. that's a good instinct he has. >> rose: yes indeed. >> but that's as far as he went. none of the people in those meetings had no idea whether thà technology worked. >> rose: was there somebody, and there were lots of people who said we've got a huge problem here. we really do, we got a system that's not going to be able to do what it promised it could do on the one hand. on the other hand you had denis mcdonough the whitehouse chief of staff telling a friend 36 hours to launch when we turn it on tomorrow we're going to knock your socks off. >> that's the level of how aloof he was from the problem. >> rose: there were people who knew they had a problem and documented it with all the initial reporting in october and november. >> consultants, they hired a team from mckenzie in the spring who said you're not going to get this going. it's obvious to anyone who had experience in this, one of the other experts who came in, this guy who saved the twitter website. he said the first mistake was so obvious is you never shift a consumer product like this, meaning a launch a consumer, you never do it all at once. you roll it out no city and then a state and two states. as you rom it you see all the stuff that doesn't work and fix it. you don't roll it out to the country in one day. no one ever does that. >> rose: and so why did they do it. >> they did it because the president had established october 1 launch date. which isn't anywhere in the legislation. they could have easily rolled it out. >> rose: it was the option the president decided on was an appropriate time to start it without knowing what was needed to be done. >> right. >> rose: when they came in to fix it. what was the response, was everybody saying thank god you're here, tell us everything you need to know. >> the engineer who worked for sort of the usual suspect contractors were actually glad to have them arrive because they had not had any leadership at the level of the contractor, and most important, there was no one in the government who was directing and in charge of all the contractors. so they were happy to have these guys there. as the woman said once you get the suits out of the way and you get these guys in the room who don't dress like you and me except maybe their collars don't work. once you get them in the room, they want to fix it. they all cared about this too. a lot of them, their families had healthcare issues. as have many. so this is not an abstract thing. >> rose: so where is it today. >> it works. the part that doesn't work is a back-end, paying the insurance companies after you sign up. that just means the insurance companies and the government has to do more paperwork by hand so it's not going to affect the consumers. >> rose: knife taken care of the access to healthcare.gov. >> yes, they have. >> rose: what have they found out about who is will is to come and access and whether they'll get enough young people to support it. >> so far the demographics, they had those people aren't as good as they imagine but i don't think that's a long term problem. the site works well so they'll get those people. also in the first two years that mainly doesn't matter. the press has made more of the drama than there needs to be. if the insurance companies raise their rates more but they probably won't because they want to attract new customers at the beginning, but even if they do, the subsidies that you and i and the taxpayers pay for people to get insurance will just go up by the amount in the effect the insurance companies raise their rates. so i don't think ultimately that's going to be a problem. i think the demographics are actually going to work out okay. >> rose: so you think everything's fine then. >> i don't think everything's fine. they do have that challenge. >> rose: you think it's going to work out okay is they've got -- >> what's not fine is the challenge i wrote about in that first article, which is many more people in this country, tens of more millions of people in this country are going to have health insurance. but the subsidies the taxpayers have to pay for them or the medicare expenses the taxpayers have to pay, which i think is a good thing, are going to be much more expensive than people think because the law does very little to go after costs. >> rose: if the american public, if it was politically feasible, would we have been better off with some other system payer of some other economic model. >> we talk board of director this last time. every other country in the developed world has that kind of other system. >> rose: kind of medicare system. >> variations of it. the citizens of those countries are satisfied with the system. since the costs per capita are half to what we pay. and since most important the results, the healthcare out comes are typically as good or better than the results of our healthcare system we would have been but we can't. you have to go back before world war ii to do that. you really can't unravel all that. >> rose: does medicare work. >> medicare works well. >> rose: everybody's happy about medicare. >> medicare works well and the people who run it, despite the performance in launching a commercial e commerce site run it very well i think. >> rose: so the president can look to himself and say i took advantage of what i thought was the moment to give us healthcare. i won accessibility of everybody to healthcare. and i want to make sure it was not a contributor to overall debt deficit. so i wanted to look at both access and containment. and he said i did it because he worried if he didn't do it then, there would never be no chance to do it. >> i think that's right. that has to do a lot with the book i'm writing about that so i looked at that pretty carefully. what i don't think he was able to do, and i use the term able very carefully because the political climate of getting even this bill passed was so tough. he had no extra votes. was to do much about containing costs. so the good news is that many of the thousands of people who wrote to me after the first article about horror stories being forced into bankruptcy or moving their loved ones because they couldn't afford healthcare. a lot of that has been fixed. >> rose: in terms of trying to get different ends meet and getting it through congress, on balance did they choose the right program. did they essentially put together what was necessarily for political consensus and get it through the congress. there were rnlt a lot of republican votes. >> i think they could have done it differently. they could have done more on costs. if you think about it, the hospital lobby did not oppose the bill. the pharmaceutical lobby did not oppose the bill. the medical device lobby really didn't oppose the bill. the companies sort of did but they really didn't. so if you're going to pass a law that reforms healthcare, all the major profit makers in healthcare actually like, then the motion that that's going to do something with the cost curve is kind of ridiculous. >> rose: as you know boehner and other republicans said we don't want to put immigration on the table for a vote because we want to go to the electorate in 2014 for the congressional midterm elections with one issue. healthcare. tell me what you know about how that would work politically. >> i'm not so clear that's going to cut the way they anticipate. again, i think -- >> rose: you think by vote it will be better. >> what you're going to have is a lot more people with coverage. particularly a lot more people with medicaid coverage that they didn't have. the cost again i think is going to be higher than anybody's estimated. >> rose: not little -- >> for example, if you go to kentucky, kentucky has its own state exchange which worked well from the first day. and it's still working well. they've enrolled lots of people, expanded medicaid, tens of thousands of people into medicaid. i tell you, if mitch mcconnell runs only against obamacare in november, i'm just not sure how well that's going to work in the united states. i've talked to people who are rock ribbed republicans all over the state and they love this program. >> rose: the obama people it seems to me are betting on the fact that by election day, it will work a lot people and more people will use it and there will be a better word of mouth about it. that's what they're counting on. >> they could have improved the odds on that bet if they figured out how to do it on october 1st instead of december 1st. >> rose: and did you in this intensive investigation come to conclusions about the way this administration manages programs and manages hard choices might say something about how they do other thing. >> well i like to do my journalism just by focusing on what i know and what i report. that what i know is the way they manage this program. as long as they thought that actual governing, sort of the nuts and bolts for governing is for peons and their policy people. >> rose: they thought they could create policy and simply work because somebody will make it work. >> someone else will make it work. you and i know the hard things in life are sometimes the thing that involve making it work, not just having great thoughts. >> rose: great to have you here. >> thank you, good to be here. >> rose: steven brill the cover of "time" magazine what happened to healthcare.gov and when how they fixed it. the jury may still be out in terms of how it works overall but clearly the administration went out and found some people that made it better. back in a moment. stay with us. >> i have two renaissance paintings, both come from christies so one is the pictures of 630th century and the other one, it was a very strong sale here from the collection of the gold sticker and that's where i bought the painting. i don't know who the alter es is. >> rose: david zwimer. last year he was placed ahead of the art revoo's power lifts. he knows famous artists. the new yorker described the gallery he opened in 2013 as a temple to minimalism and an architectural pitch to living minimalist as well. and comes from a long profile of the new yorker under the headlines dealer's hands. why so many people paying so much money for part at david zwimer. i'm pleased to have david zwimer at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thanks charlie for having us. >> rose: a pleasure to have you here. why are people paying so much for art. >> it's one of the most wonderful pursuits, collecting part. people doing it of course for centuries. but in these last 20 years since i've been in the business, it's been very much a growing business. of course prices are a function of supply and demand. and more people want a work of art. it tends to get more expensive. >> rose: and is it true that there are a lot more rich people around. a lot of money starting to come out of the tech revolution. are they investing these young entrepreneurs from silicon valley. >> not so much from silicon valley quite yet but we have collectors from the tech world but traditionally it's entrepreneurs that are collectors. people start their own businesses and start their own companies. and eventually find the time and passion to educate themselves about art and start buying. >> rose: you come to this from your father. >> yes. my dad had a gallery but it's not the gallery that i have. he had a gallery in cologne germany. i grew up in a household filled with art so i had a big advantage. there was a lot of great art i saw as a kid. i'm quite fortunate that i grew up that way. >> rose: is there therefore a philosophy behind the work that you do. is that guiding operative philosophy about being an art dealer, being a galleryist. >> the difference between an art dealer and galleryist. one works with artist and how you put a stable of artists together. i don't like the word stable but that's the word we use. the art dealer is the one that's really in charge of finding choice material and placing that with museums and great collectors. so he kind of by passes the art to some extent whereas the galleryists really has the artist front and center and his job is to manage and maximize what an artist wants to create or wants to do. >> rose: he only sells those people that he manages. >> correct. the galleryist should do that. the art deal of course has a much broader field. he could play whatever, interested in all kinds of art and has all kinds of interest. >> rose: what did you say the artist i read out, what do they have in common. >> i think they have in common that they are singular voices. they certainly don't have a stylistic similarities. raymond pettybone that's a great artist that works on paper and almost exclusively on paper. donald judd who is one of the great minimalists sculpture. we're looking for artist authentic in their vision and singular the way they go about making art. that's the philosophy of the group of artists we brought together. >> rose: you described minimalism as the last really great newness. >> that is true and not really true. what i mean really by that is that of course the great newness in the 20th century is modernism itself. and i think minimalism brought modernism to its logical conclusion. it's sort of the most extreme form of the new of trying to change the world. maybe even some talking ideas about it. post modernism accepts the world as it is and doesn't necessarily bring something radical new into the world in terms of object but radical point of view. >> rose: how did you become attracted to minimalism. >> i think anybody that's in my field is attracted to minimalism. the intellectual rigor of bringing the work to its logical consequence, really taking everything out that is unnecessary and trying to find a pure perfect ideal form is very appealing. and of course the other wonderful thing about the minimalist they're the first that really incorporated architecture. it's not just a work of art it's a work of art in a piece of architecture. and that dialogue is very very interesting to me. >> rose: this is what you also said and the new yorker magazine was a real guide for preparing this. there were true modernists, this is you. found it strange that judd and -- were selling for a fraction of -- in absolute terms i can't imagine a museum director saying i don't need playman or a judd. >> i think any museum director that slaven and judd is very much the connellen. it's the role of the job of the historians in this world to tell the history of art and you can't do it at this stage without bringing minimalism into the equation. the price thing that i mentioned is really something quite different. pop art and minimalism originated around the same time, early 60's. and they're both radical movements and they're both changed the way we look at art and changed art. strangely enough one is valued much much higher than the other. i think in absolute terms of historical value that's not right. >> rose: not right because. >> because they are equally important. >> rose: i see. >> i think that might recognize itself. not in my lifetime but eventually. >> rose: minimalism is undervalued for because it longs to a level of pop art. >> that's what i think.d.ocontrl importance. it's really a break through in the visual arts. >> rose: do you like everything that you show? >> no. i should. but you know, that's impossible to like everything that you show. >> rose: do you tell the artist? >> that's a very very difficult thing to do. but it is our job to edit. and i've done it. certainly i've done things like gone into a studio is a great great experience. i've seen a body of work and i might have suggested to the artist to postpone the show or wait a little bit. however one has to be cautious. sometimes you go into a studio that you see something new you don't understand and the not understanding might bring to a negative reaction where that's really a break through body of work. i've learned to tread likely. sometimes you show a body of work that you don't feel absolutely great about. and the audience passes judgment and then you both you and the artist learn. >> rose: how is your own taste or your own appreciation changed over the years. >> you know for anything i'm more and more in awe of what it takes to be an artist. i find the pressures and the rigor of going into that studio and confronting nothing and making something really extra. >> rose: like a writer looking at a blank page. >> exactly. and i have more respect, so that's changed. i cut the artist more slack. >> rose: was there ever a moment in your life when you wanted to paint. >> absolutely not. i think that's quite treacherous if you think you could do what they're doing. >> rose: you can't appreciate what they are doing. >> or you're in your own way trying to do, your judge is probably flawed because he should be using green when he's using red or something like that. i have no talent in painting. i can't even take a good photograph to be honest. >> rose: why is that. >> i don't know. >> rose: if you knew, you'd fix it. >> exactly. >> rose: i've always noticed this. just tell me if this is wrong and isolated. i interview artists, musicians, actors, politicians, business executives, scientists, novelists, poets. >> right. >> rose: every one that i know is a student of the art that's been in their arena. and they look almost clinically at others' work asking themselves how did they do this and how is this new. there's a constant inquiry about what everybody's doing. not to copy but to understand. >> what you're saying is that artists are very very very astute critics as well. >> rose: can you believe that, what i just said. >> i think that artists, i love going to museum with an artist. i think they have a certain type of looking, a certain way of looking at art. i can learn a lot from them. >> rose: how do they look at art differently from the way you look at art. >> i'm looking at it mostly through my education and the way i understand the canon. so i'm looking how that particular work folds into it period and how it makes sense in a period. they look at it in a singular way. how did this guy come up with this @phone. you can gore with the contemporary artists into an exhibition of old masters and looking at the work as if it was made yesterday. very very fascinating. >> rose: i wanted to do this. take an artist, it's impossible for me to do it because i wouldn't have, if they would do this and to have some act he is and other people have thought about this too. from the moment the idea of painting a painting came into their head, you know, what went on between that time and the last stroke that they took. what's the process. >> that's very interesting. we have artists that have a almost daily studio practice, so they will come into the studio and they will start working on the canvas, they will be changing the canvas, that will disappear and another will start up. we have other artists spending months and months thinking about the imagery and then will create these paintings within hours or days. and it's quite fascinating, so it's very different approach. one is really a physical approach working through the canvas, through the problems. the other one is really more of a conceptual approach is the right picture to paint. >> rose: they know right away. >> exactly. i saw you flash a photograph earlier. he's the kind of artist that will be talking about an exhibition, an idea about a group of paintings. it will be completely finished. sometimes he even shows me photographs. and then he'll go and execute them in the studio. and it's always just mind-boggling how he does it. >> rose: how do you approach the life of a galleryist and how are you different from others. >> i think i'm different because i have a he have very distinct group of artists that i work w i think the comparisons really should not so much about about rankings and this and that and the other thing, it's really who are the artists this guy works with, what is his sensibility like and is he a co-charity artists strong. are these careers that will sustain. or are they just fashionable, sell well, that kind of stuff. so i think if i'm proud of something i'm proud of this group of almost now i think 45 artists and estates that we represent. and that's really what the gallery's about. >> rose: what did your father teach you. >> don't haggle when you want to buy a great work of art. buy it, maybe even offer a little bit. >> rose: he said don't haggle. if you want it go for it. >> exactly. >> rose: have you followed that. >> i made great mistakes when i did not and i certainly learned my lesson. >> rose: if you love it and want it get it. a year from that you will forget what you paid for it. >> that's what i always say to clients. now you're all upset from the price but a year from now you will be walking through your house and there's the work and you can't remember. >> rose: exactly what you paid for. that's generally true. >> collectors are certainly tht way. i don't think they walk through the collections and -- >> rose: do you mean by that the quality of their collection or the quality of how they approach their collection. you can put together a collection i assume where the sensitivity is someone else. >> there are lot of different ways putting a collection together. i think you can, if you are a novice and you want to try not to do mistakes there are art consultants and counselors in to guide you through the process. if you want to do it yourself you have to educate yourself, go to the museums, be passionate about it. i think those that really engage and really pursue the interests find great collections. >> rose: let's take a look at some of these. the first one is as you look, this is secretary of state in 2005. there it is. tell me about the painting. >> so this is a painting that luke painted in 2005 and there was the year i think after the bush administration got voted in again. and he was interested in that from a european point ofose: ta rice. >> that's condoleezza rice. for the europeans this second term of the bush administration was rather a strange event. people couldn't realize this president had been re-elected given his track record. he wanted images to capture the mood. this is pretty iconic painting. i think condoleezza rice really is a great great visual metaphor for these bush years. >> rose: yes. >> if you would see the painting in the flesh, you would notice that even though it's a small painting, the head is gigantic. so if this was a person she would be a jaint. the painting is menacing. it's for everybody to see. >> rose: the next one is a jeff coon installation. he was showing work with another galleryist. does that happen often. >> this was unusual to have two big exhibitions in the new york at the same time. i used say that ours was to show brand new work, so we were really excited. we premiered a new body of work, the gazing bald sculpture is what you're looking at. maybe i pulled back on this one because it was amazing. i always admired jeff's work but i didn't think i would be working with him. do you remember in 2012 it hit new york, but it hit the chile see art district really bad. people didn't know that. a lot of galleries were under water. we were under five and-a-half feet of water. while we were cleaning up. it was really facilitating. we lost our facilities and the exhibition program. i got a call from jeff studio to arrange a meeting. i thought why would i get a call in the middle of this. i thought he was calling me for a fund raiser. i said i don't think we have time right now we're really in a terrible way. he says no jeff really wants you to come to the studio. i went over and it's quite informal. there's his office desk but people at work literally just around. right there he asked me whether i would be interested in showing a new body of work and he brought me a of the gazing ball skiers. we premiered that work last year and it was great great success. >> rose: was he showing at the same time somewhere else. >> he's had a long relationship with another gallery and actually has a long relationship with another gallery in new york. >> rose: why did he call you. >> i think he really wanted fresh, a fresh vehicle for this type of work. his new, brand new body of work. and this work is really a synthesis of the work he's done in the last 30 years throughout his career. i think he just wanted it to be in a place where there was no history and it worked really really well. >> rose: what is the greatness of jeff coons. >> i think jeff is a catalyst of our culture. i think once you engage with this work you really know where we are and what we're when we talk board of director minimalism and post modernism. jeff is a post modernist . what's exciting for his work and disturbing for others is he accepts the will that is. acceptance and affirmations are really strategies he employs. very often artists i expected to rebel but this kind of extreme affirmation is just as radical. >> rose: he's the most accessible alter es -- artist i can imagine. >> he's been -- >> rose: more than once. and he comes and there's no sense of i'm an artist as much as as let's have a conversation about whatever you want to talk about. >> he is his art. there's really no daylight between his private life and his life as an artist. and what i love about him he really stands behind the work. he really is with the work. if you invite him to speak about, if he will come he will defend it. he will it's basically the persona and the way he frame the work is part of the work and that's very fascinating. >> rose: is this a good time in new york, forget prices and all that but the creation and the body of work that's out across not just minimalism but across the spectrum. is this a fertile period or can you even say that. >> i think that's very difficult to say when you're in it. it feels as if artists have tremendous opportunities right now and there's great great freedom to produce. but in a strange way the relatively radical influx of money into the art world makes it harder for careers to develop. things are sped up and that might be difficult especially for younger generation. >> rose: meaning that they are famous and rich but they fully flushed out where their head is and where the talent is. >> exactly. i think it takes a while to find your voices in art. you have false start and you might have to make a terrible show to get to a good show. you have to be on a fixed idea. i think right now for the young generation that's not easy because very often there is judgment passes on as a great artist. >> rose: tell me about this. >> so this is another great phenomena. she is now in her 80's. and in her sixth decade of making art. she started in new york. she came to new york in her 20's and actually lived with donald judd. there was word there was a little romantic liaison between the two of them. she's really unusual in the history of art because she planted her flag both in minimalism. the early paintings are white minimalist seals of art making and pop art. she did happenings, performances and was quite influential in new york as a pop artist. and is still going in both directions works that you could call minimalist but very immersive and very popular work. this particular piece you're just showing is presented in new york, it was a most successful show, the most prop her show ever. people lined up around the block to see this work. >> rose: this is in 2013. next is john juddd from 1991. >> so this is a nice photograph. we built a new gallery on 20th street. we built a gallery with -- >> rose: yes, more than once. >> yes, good, good. anna bell, you put this building together and we open it with a judd show and this is the part of the exbusiness, work he did later in his career i think in 1991. and of course he and slaven are the father figures of minimalism. >> rose: he was the 1974 slaven. >> so that is a piece we showed not at the same time we just looked at. that's a show we did a couple years ago. this type of work is called a barrier and it's exactly that. it is a work of neon light that affects the room. and again it's kind of installation you want to hear and the kind of thing you want to see where the minimalists were the first to create an idea of installation. >> rose: the next one and finally doug wheeler this is a current exhibition at the gallery. this one gets harder and harder to talk about. this is really, this is a brand new work. you also could consider him a minimalist. he's really one of the people that comes out of los angeles and started the light in space movement. this is a rotational horizon that's how he calls it. and you said you hadn't been to the gallery. i wish you would come and see this. this one you really have to experience. it's a very very large room that you enter into and you would not know where this room ends. so it's the most, almost surrel space in new york that i know right now. people call it existential. >> rose: you have hired management consultants from stanford and mckenzie and goldman sachs to do what? to help you understand the dynamics of the art business? >> you know, not really that. i think the art business i understand as well as i can understand it. but we are, the business itself is, has a strong mom and pop mentality. most galleries are small. there's not a lot of staff. the business model is quite ancient and i realized in order to grow with the careers of the artists that we represent, i needed to grow my business also. and i'm not a trained businessman and it's smart to get some help to understand how to hire well and how to structure business that wants to compete. >> rose: did it work for you. >> so far so good. i'm sitting here, right. >> rose: back to what a galleryist does and the management of artists. if someone came to you who was, who came to your gallery frequently and had made much purchases from you said to you, i want you to go find me a, something that you did not show. and an artist you did not manage. would you simply put them in touch with a dealer or would you go in search of what was wanted. >> that's very much the side of what we do. we are both art dealers and we are galleryists and as art dealers you in the best case anywhere oh -- scenario you try to find out what a particular collector is after, how he wants to shape his collection. you want to help him fill the gaps in the collection. i would take that seriously. i would go get that kind of call and try to find a work of art that makes sense or that's totally out of my realm of expertise i would let him know quickly too. >> rose: what's the going commission. >> the going commission is more or less set by what the action holders charge. the auction holders charge somewhat sliding scale how expensive a work is. it is mostly 20%. that's mostly the commission the auction houses charge unless a work is more expensive than $2 million and then it's up for negotiation. >> rose: down below 20%. >> yes, down to maybe 2%. >> rose: maybe i came to you and said as of this moment i want to write a first paragraph about what you had done. what ought to be in that first paragraph? >> difficult question. a few years ago was able together with a colleague of mine by a collection of artwork. group of artwork that was in a museum for almost 40 years, it was called the laos. we made a beautiful work of catalog and did a big show and then placed most of the work in other collections. so that was a significant deal that i'm quite proud of. >> rose: if in fact you are a businessman and don't love art, can you be equally successful? >> i think that would be difficult. i think you have to love art first. if you don't love art first you probably are going to get lost in certain judgments that you'll make that are not going to be the right judgments. look, it's all about making that judgment call. do i like this, do i stand behind that, can i promote this. and if you are insecure, i don't think it's really going to work however good you are as a businessman. >> rose: in the world that we live in, people love competition. they love competition between the new york yankees and the boston red sox. they love competition between google and facebook and apple and all of that. they also love competition between galleryists and they love competition between you and larry gegozi. how do you see that competition. >> i think competition is a greatit would be crazy if we dot have it. >> rose: in other words if you were in a very competitive place, it generally makes you better. >> exactly. and larry has a fantastic gallery. >> rose: how is he different from you? >> you know again back to what i said earlier, he's a different stable of artists, a different team of people that work with them. they have a certain atmosphere. i've been working hard to create an atmosphere -- >> rose: how do those atmospheres differ? >> i think we are really primarily artist centric. the philosophy is really puts the artists first. i started as a galleryist the first few things i did was travel around and get myself a group of artists together. like luke, that was something right in the beginning. i became an art dealer later. i realized in order to finance my escapade. some of the artists they worked in large installation and film and video. i wanted to subsidize what i'm doing with the sales of works that we sell in the secondary market. and i think in larry's case it's a little bit of an inverse road. i think he started as an art dealer and found his passion as a galleryist. so i think we're a little different now. >> rose: someone said the profile in the new york has said when you lost france west to gegoze something changed in you. >> that's one of my all time favored artists and what changed was i was heart broken. this was an artist we worked with in the early 90's into the late 90's and i really busted my chops to bring him to an international audience and then he jumped ship and that was done. i desperately learned a valuable lesson. >> rose: do you know who it was. >> i realized i to do to grow my business to be competitive at different levels. so it was certainly a switch was thrown at that time. >> rose: then you began to show some of his art like jeff coons and richard say aye. >> i would say working with these artists would go into that gallery. it shows that. in richard's case all we did and it's very important to point that out, it was an early show of early material. richard sat at this table. >> rose: many times. >> richard's an all time great artist there's nut no question about that. i was fascinated the first four years or five years the way he develop his language. it's have distinct moment. if you looked at his work the materials, he could trace a direct lineage to what he's doing today. so we approached him to get his blessing and what happened you would know richard, he took over. he started with a fantastic project and was very very involved. but we don't represent richard sarah. >> rose: i love growing up in your dining room there were 40 or so warhol boxes you couldn't sell. >> correct. >> rose: they're in i don't remember living room. >> they finally made it into a goo place, into the museum ludwig. he was the great european collector in the 70's. and you could see him there in the museum ludwig but those were my favorite hiding spaces that's right. >> rose: where is all this going. the art market has ups and downs. but do you see it sort of on an up surge now for a while. does it totally tie itself to the economy? >> it totally is tied to the economy. at the high price level at which we are now. at the price level of young galleries with new artists, it's not. they are approachable and they will always find buyers. of course we have price escalation in the last, in the 20th since i've been in business, and it's been incredible to see how resilient our market has been. it was in a serious slump when i started, 91, 92. lots of galleries closed in new york. it was almost catastrophic. and it's been rising ever since. so we are in a kind of fascinating moment, golden age of sorts of the art market. one of the things that has happened in the last 20 years is it's gotten much much broader and bigger. it used to be european in an american pursuit. and now it's a global pursuit. now you have collector. and that of course china's just starting. so the middle east is strong. so i think it's real. people say i don't think so. >> rose: the thing about you is you came to new york thinking you might be a musician. >> yes. and i failed that at endeavor. i had a lot of fun. i went to miu and studied jazz with some great great people. i don't know whether you had jazz musicians at your table. >> rose: i have. >> dave douglas is somebody i played with who became a big star. i didn't think i could cut it. i married a wonderful woman and realized i wanted to start a family. i must say my heart goes out to the jazz musicians of this world, it's a hard life and they really put so much into it. i didn't have that stamp ma -- stamina so i changed course. >> rose: i'm glad to you. thank you for coming. >> thank you for having me. >> rose: this is a new york are from december 2nd, 2013. it's called dealer's hand. and it is a profile. thank you very much. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. brought to you in part by -- >> the street.com. founded by jim cramer, the street.com is an independent source for stock market analysis. cramer's action alerts plus service is home to his multimillion dollar portfolio. you can learn more at the street.com/nbr. rising tensions. stocks wrap up a strong month with blue chips ending higher today despite dramatic events unfolding half a world away in ukraine. tae a tense weekend lies ahead. housing milestone. fast-rising home prices are giving borrowers back equity. but will it be enough to put a spring into spring selling season? facing shareholders. app ceo tim c