Well its been a big week. I’ve been in Boston working with Harold Feinstein on what turned out to be almost 4 hours of video interviews with this amazing photographer.
We’re quickly turning this into a retrospective documentary on Harold Feinstein’s life and work. He’s an amazing man who’s had one of the most amazing careers a photographer could ask for spanning nearly 70 years.
Today I’m going to give you a teaser just so you have an idea of how cool this project is going to be when its done.
On one of the days I was interviewing Harold, the news broke of Peter Lik’s photograph that sold for $6.5 million. As I’m sure most of you know, an argument of largely click bait ensued at the always classy Guardian over whether or not photography could be considered art.
As I started getting emails and tweets from people asking me to talk about this, I realized this was a good one to ask Harold about.
http://theartofphotography.tv/episodes/harold-feinstein-trailer/
Tweets by tedforbes
Original source
33 responses to “Harold Feinstein :: Is Photography Art?”
Such a desperation by so many to be called artist’, and what they produce art. Like it is the most important and compelling thing about a craft. Oh and did I mention that Peter Lik guy….
Hi Ted, was wondering – where is the rest of the interview?
thanks for everything
Wondering if the documentary on Harold Feinstein has been completed? I would love to see more!
It's just pictures.
Photography is simply not an art. It is too easy.
This was truly delightful; thank you both.
"We live within a miracle, and we don't appreciate it." This quote speaks to me so deeply!
Blown away. Thanks
ART that is the Question If you like something then that is a piece of art to you, just because other people may not get it does not mean its not Art… As he said is it the brush or the person (artist)
Nice MS-20! Perhaps there is an interesting connection in what Harold said about a sable brush to the "pure" sound of a synthesizer… Is music art? I think the most interesting aspect of the "art or technology" debate is found by tracing the etymology of of the word technology: techno, which is the Greek word for art. When considered that way, it kind of makes the whole debate seem silly. The more fascinating question to me is where the boundary lies between the artist, his/her tools, and the work created.
Hello Ted. You were so blessed to be able to meet and talk with Harold before he passed away. May he rest in peace. He was an amazing photographer and his photos make me want to visit Coney Island.
I never understood this question. The question shouldn't be is photography art, but rather is YOUR photography art? Knowing the difference between a snapshot and work of "art" separates the untrained photographer from the trained photographer.
Another aspect of photography/art is scale. No tablet or computer screen will convey the same response as a large print.
That columnists quote, I think, is the most ignorant thing I have ever read.
Fascinating video, right up there with your best. I've had the subject art v objectivity elsewhere and I won't rehash it here but I challenge the Guardian columnists to take one photograph that will be hung in any exhibition on its own merit.
Is that a Moog in the background? Are you also a musician?
fantastic…thank you
Mr Forbes, your channel is bringing to you tube some class interviews which I very much enjoy. Thank you very much. Michael Cook.
Great video! Is that a Korg MS-20 in the background?
What a sweet, sweet man and I'm so sorry to have learned of his passing last year. Although based on his attitude, he's probably in another dimension champing at the bit to get working on his next incarnation. Thanks Ted that was a treat.xxx
You cannot make a technique or a tool ART… Either in photography, painting, sculpture or any other art representation… what makes it art is the MESSAGE and the vision of the artist. Is subjective to the viewer not to the artist. No one can tell you what is art but you can tell what you feel. How that photograph or painting fills that empty space in you. Then there is ART!.
Were you ever able to finish this project ?
What an amazing guy.
Ted, thank you for making this available to us. It is wonderful to see how respectful you approach Harold Feinstein. Thank you!
To be good, a photograph takes careful attention to science, technique, technology, and artistic vision. All art requires discipline and careful honing of the craft. That is is a seems more science based craft is perhaps due to the lack of understanding of how much craft is really necessary by the layman who has not studies the subject. Photography it only a bit more technological than perspective and figure painting. It is as instinctive in capture of the image juste as the much slower painters or sculptors rendering. But the results grab us non the less. And that is the intent of art, to touch the soul. We can appreciate the image created in its poetry and also the skill of the maker. No less than we do of the classic painter. The skills are entirely different, but great photographers just as rare as great painters it seems, so perhaps their art or skill is to be lauded as much. If you think not, then do better and get their supposed ill got acclaim in
turn.
pretty cool. thank you so much
R.I.P…………
I just love how impressed you are ted. It says a lot about you… amazing, thank you.
He made an important point in that in the act of creation an artist is already being rewarded.
Not all photos are art; the ones many people take are simply records of a moment. Artists with cameras produce not photographs, but art. They can captivate the mind by telling a visual story. They preserve the art of everyday moments and ordinary objects.
Please no more beard on mike action…
but thanks for this!
He seems to be a very gentle being… looking forward to the whole interview…
I would also argue that it becomes less of an art the more technology improves….. I think pictures where more of a fine art when the technology was still very primitive.