Charlie Rose

janeeyre  10/10/2009 04:18 PM Report

I love Charlie flirting with her at the end, love it...laughing.. So cute.

janeeyre  10/10/2009 03:24 PM Report

She's an icon herself. Anyone studying art history/arch. history must study Huxtable --her writing is clear as a bell, brave, and bold. And, she opened the doors for many women writers in the male bastion of architecture.

johncasper  06/07/2009 11:25 PM Report

Ada was terrific.

nmfjordan  04/24/2009 10:59 PM Report

Fabulous: erudite while being understandable, not always an easy task for a critic, especially regarding archi!

robert  04/07/2009 10:47 AM Report

very worthwhile guest. informative interview

iamcaroljean  04/03/2009 04:35 PM Report

I AGREE with bonacker: "This interview was Charlie Rose at his best. there was a lovely chemistry between him and Huxtable. His tendency to interrupt the guest to demonstrate his knowledge of certain subjects provided, in this case, opportunities for Huxtable to offer her out-spoken views on many subjects such as Michael Bloomberg. I enjoyed this interview enormously."

Meeee too. Ms. Huxtabel is wonderful; I enjoyed CR being his animated self and a bit out of his role. Carol-Jean

bonacker  04/03/2009 04:13 PM Report

This interview was Charlie Rose at his best. Even his tendency to suck up to those guests he idolizes, usually annoying, worked to the advantage of the interview as there was a lovely chemistry between him and Huxtable. His tendency to interrupt the guest to demonstrate his knowledge of certain subjects provided, in this case, opportunities for Huxtable to offer her out-spoken views on many subjects such as Michael Bloomberg. I enjoyed this interview enormously.

flintflicker  04/03/2009 01:11 PM Report

i came away knowing so much about the subject the person but most of all, how good an interviewer you are.

thank you

REMant  04/03/2009 11:17 AM Report

I think most architecture fails simply because the function it is supposed fulfill changes and it is not adaptable. This is usually because it was conceived with too little attention paid to function in the first place, but always because too little was paid to thinking about the future. But then I suppose we think more and more of them as disposable anyway, so why not be faddish? The only time I can think that buildings should be basically dramatic rather than utilitarian is when they are supposed to play that role in support of their function, thinking now mainly of galleries and theaters, but that is not a license, for instance, I think the Sydney Opera House very artistic, but that has little to do with the business of opera. The Bilbao gallery is better in that respect. The new gallery overlooking Boston harbor, on the other hand, I think, works against its purpose, like a tourist's view of the Empire State Building, a fact that seems to have occurred to whomever put up a curtain to spoil the view. BTW, I did not mean to imply the other day that art never had any utility, but only to contrast it with architecture, which must have a useful purpose, or it isn't architecture. The AT&T building reminds me vaguely of some kind of antiquated Bell equipment, perhaps a rack of relays, or a Princess phone. Ummh, now that you mention it perhaps she could play Miss Marple, but I think she might actually make a better detective.

doodahdaze  04/03/2009 09:06 AM Report

The older I get the more I appreciate architecture, the failures as much as the triumphs; for without the failures (at someone else's expense, of course) we could not know the triumphs (at someone else's expense, of course); which in lies the true WORK, that as a society we can not afford to move back into caves. (not feasible)