John Rankin Waddell, or simply Rankin, is an English photographer, publisher and director. His portfolio includes photo-shoots with Queen Elizabeth II, Tony Blair, The Rolling Stones, U2, Schwarzenegger, Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell, Leonardo di Caprio… Among the many projects he has founded are the magazine and digital television station “Dazed & Confused.” His first feature film, “The Lives of the Saints,” garnered the main jury prize at Salento. He has also released several books, the latest of which, “Beautiful,” is about the most famous women in the world and their beauty. Rankin doesn’t repeat himself and doesn’t fit into any framework. His works are intimate, refined, witty and paradoxical.

Do you consider yourself a shock photographer?

Many interpret my works as provocative, and in fact, that’s probably the case. But I don’t set myself a goal of shocking people with my shoots. My goal is creativity, making works that concern and interest me.

Which of your works do you consider most provocative?

I don’t show anyone my most provocative works. These pictures are of an almost pornographic character. When I shoot, I try to pry myself out of all frameworks and break all the taboos I can. Personally, I have no boundaries, but I do have an internal sense that does not allow me to show some materials to the general public.

What can shock you?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I am obsessed with things that are considered revolting and frightening. I am a very boring person because only the extreme manifestations of life attract me. But they are, you know, the most interesting. Once I saw how a car hit a person, and having become a witness to this event, I caught myself observing it with interest. This doesn’t mean that I love such scenes. Simply, I analyze human behavior in tough situations.

Has there been an event in your life, after which you reassessed you values?

The birth of my child, the deaths of loved ones… Everybody experiences these things and feels basically the same way. Both you and I… After experiencing something like this, you begin to behave differently, your way of thinking changes. When a parent dies, there is a sense of complete despair. Then you start to be more attentive to your own child. You want to give him more – more care, joy, warmth… I am a humanist, but not any special kind of humanist. I mean, maybe special, but only special in the way that you and all other people are…

In you opinion, what works of art possess an unbelievable strength?

Generally speaking, I am a fan of different genres of art. Historical examples in a variety of genres greatly influence me and what I shoot. I remember when I took a book of reproductions of Caravaggio in my hands and how I was mesmerized. Then I saw the real picture and it made no impression on me. When I first saw the work “Away from the Flock” by Damien Hirst, I was stunned. I suddenly understood that photography must be simple and shot not for intellectuals but for people who will look and understand.

And how can one tell what is a work of art or not?

It seems to me that if you’ve hung something on the wall, then it’s already art.

Do you create a familiar image of the people you shoot or do you try to extract something out of them that they themselves don’t know about?

I have one premeditated thought. True, it doesn’t exactly answer your question, but I’ll say it first, and them I’ll certainly try to answer you. Photographs are in essence falsities. Yes, they create an impression of authenticity, but it’s always something artificially created. Unreality. In any case, the tale is a lie. I know, a priori, that I am lying, but I always try to do it as honestly as possible. But now I’ll try to answer you more concretely. There are two sorts of people: those who allow you in, give you the possibility of finding something unknown in them and can appear anew; and those who just want to be beautiful. So the result of my shoot depends on the wishes of the person I’m shooting. I don’t pressure anyone and don’t insist on anything. I am not an artist. I am a photographer. This is business. But I experience conflicting feelings. On the one hand, I am very proud that any model will look beautiful in my photos – I am seduced by the world of fashion and the possibilities of modern photography. On the other hand, I hate all of that. And pretty shoots annoy me and disappoint me since I understand full well how shallow they are.

Can you name any portraits you’ve done of other people that are also partly self portraits?

My photographs are a diary, a book that describes my life. Only I’m not in it… I really do feel that recently my work has begun to speak more about me. I see myself in portraits of other people, since they contain my view of their nature. When you can glimpse your image in a photograph where you are absent, you feel fantastic. But this occurs only when you invest your internal strength, your talent, into a photograph. And sometimes you simply set up the lighting properly or the model poses well. You hold the camera on your outstretched hand and press the button – it’s a craft. The content of photographs shot this way has little to do with me personally.

Do you categorize people as photogenic and non-photogenic?

For me, the glass is always half full. I can make any person beautiful. And there’s no difference who I’m photographing – a star or a bystander. I love people and love making photographs.