 |
Ben Ritter
Tuesday, 24th June, 2008
|
 Talented NY photographer Ben Ritter has captured some of music's real Charlie big potatoes. From Beck to Tokyo Police Club to Fergie. Spicy.
Anywho, we picked his brains on the craft of taking photos. Check out his website at www.benritter.com.
Milk: How long have you been taking photographs?
I got into photo when I was 15 years old. I was artsy but was a terrible painter, not good at drawing, creative though. An art teacher of mine who I was close with said "I want to see what you would do with a camera." ...I was like ok, me too... I would go to shows and shoot bands, scene pics, friends, girlfriends and was pretty experimental in the dark room. It worked for me. The same teacher went out of her way to recommend that I check out Diane Arbus, Larry Clark, Lee Friendlander and Richard Billingham. All of these people were shooting the most fascinating people and scenarios. I wanted to be there too. I always find it funny looking back that I grew up in suburban New Jersey with all of the opportunities in the world and at that time I was bummed out that my friends were not all transvestite, drug addicts and criminals so I could take awesome pictures too. It's funny to have the perspective on life now to recognize that. I'm currently 26 so that makes 11 years. Wait... Was I just supposed to answer the question by saying 11 years?
You have quite an expansive portfolio... what do you like to photograph the most?
I think that the shoots that get me most excited are when I know I am being given an opportunity to shoot someone or something that not everyone has access to. These days photo is accessible to anyone and, everyone is going to take some good if not great pictures here and there, so it is nice to have some recognition in such an over-saturated arena of pros and amateurs . With that said, it is very rewarding, but the actual shoots can be less exciting then the phone call asking me to do the job and then actually having the photos in hand when all is said and done. That is the side of me that makes a living doing this talking. I love shooting photos and specifically of people. The more spontaneous the moment the better no matter the setting, candid or studio. I have a camera with me most everywhere I go, thus if i am having fun or seeing something outrageous or beautiful or ugly, unfold before me then that is what like to photograph the most. I like being there. Some of the still life work you may be referring to as "expansive" parts of my portfolio are just jobs. I enjoy the technical aspect of photo, so they are good stress-free gigs to land for a payday. I really do enjoy the work regardless, but I am hoping that with continued momentum in other areas I will be able to focus on only shoots that I can really sink my teeth into.
Who has been the easiest to photograph?
My friends are creative and hilarious. Attractive bunch too, but if you are specifically asking about a band or celeb of some sort then I will have to give it up to Chamillionaire. He was just all poses and attitude and fun. He told me the pics looked "gangsta". Bands that don't take themselves seriously are always great because they will have fun with it and stay loose. When someone is willing to interact with me and trust that my only intention is to take great photos of them then the shots are going to be much more compelling and dynamic then, say, the person that just stands there and does nothing for fear of even one bad shot. I mentioned earlier that actual studio shoots are not that thrilling as they are happening, and its true. A lot of the experiences are interchangeable in terms of how easy or difficult it was to photograph someone.
What do you consider to be your role as a photographer? As someone who extracts something of the subject's character and expresses that in print, as a preserver of impressionistic moments... are your subjects merely a jumping off point for your own artistic tangents... does it just depend?
It very much depends. If I'm in the studio with a band It helps to check out their website and get a feel for who they are and who they present themselves as. That will influence some of my initial choices in terms of lighting and colors and backdrops. I try not to have preconceived notions, though. I am very relaxed and only direct on points that I feel need to be directed on. My role is to put them at ease and the best way to do that is to fuck around and make people laugh. Having the ice broken early is key, because often I am hired to do something very personal with a total stranger. In these situations it is my job to quickly get a feel for them in person and get that feeling that i get to shine through visually. Some people are outrageous and it's easy but you have to make sure their energy is for the camera and not all over the place, and sometimes people are modest and pensive and you have to work with them to relay that without it coming off as cheesy or boring. Shooting a portrait on location is very different. Often I will think of the first idea that pops into my head based on who the subject is and obsess over it to the point that I cannot come up with any other ideas. A good example being a hip-hop duo I shot in a field full of pinwheels. That was my first and only idea and we went with it; bought 400 pinwheels. They embraced it and the collaborative effort is really beautiful. I direct more heavily in these scenarios too, because in a studio the backdrop creates a space and a boundary, on location i am more likely to grab you and push you and tell you when to jump and where to look and what to hold and how to feel and what to think, but its not me treating subjects like puppets, it is working with them to get the vibe they give me to translate onto an exposure. The end result is hopefully very much a big piece of me and a big piece of them.
Do you prefer to direct your subjects or to work collaboratively?
I prefer a collaboration, because the subject should take a lot of stake in how they are being represented. No one should ever have to do anything they are not comfortable with, but it is sometimes my job to suggest that we push it and ease out of comfort zones. I think that my response to the last question kind of answers this one in a lot of ways. Every shoot is different, every person is different and people need a photographer to not be afraid to be very honest, yet constructive, when something is out of place. I always take the lead but I like to hear ideas and thoughts from my subjects along the way. Editing is such a huge part of the process and hopefully by that point in the chain of events I have gained my subject or editors trust enough to be able to have the final say if not just heavily influence it.
And what do you like most about photography as an art form?
I love how something that's basis is capturing a moment of reality as it truly happened can be so brutally dishonest or so truthfully revealing... This is the hardest question in the world. I want to say as little as possible so as to not have this be a 12 page response. It would likely not make any sense either. You would need a decoder ring to get through it. I really love the versatility, the prevalence, the immediacy, the history. The only thing I don't like about it is the business aspect that comes along at a certain level, but even that is working out ok.
What has been your most memorable shooting? Any funny tales to tell?
Errr,... one time Vice magazine asked me to shoot a portrait for a section they were doing for a few months called "It Happened". This story was about some guy who got so wasted that he went home with a co-worker and when he was like... blacked out and ass naked in a strange apartment he went looking for a bathroom but ended up in the hall with no idea where he was and knocking on his neighbors door, out of his mind shit faced and totally wearing no clothing, no idea where he was. Meanwhile he must have knocked on less friendly doors, so, while a nice neighbor gives him a towel and helps him out, the cops show up. They figured out which apartment he came out of and put him to bed. Anyway, my part of the story is that i agree to go shoot this portrait of this crazy naked dude with the neighbor that helped out and that day my friend Dan calls and is like, where am I meeting you for this portrait? I lost it! Vice had no idea that the night in question, the two of us were drinking heavy amounts of Whiskey at an open bar. Dan never told me what happened on the fated night because he was so mortified. Somehow having the story told with his real name and face attached to it was the best way to cope? Maybe it's more his story then mine, but none the less a funny tale where I play a relevant supporting role and now you know.
What photographers excite you?
Jason Nocito, Roe Ethridge, Richard Billingham, Boris Mikhailov, Terry Richardson, Juergen Teller, Nan Goldin, William Eggleston, Corrine Day, Todd Hido, Glynnis Mcdaris, sally mann, gregory krewdson, wolfgang tillmans, avedon, arubs. ya know, some obvious some lesser known. I probably left out 1000 names here. I'm a photography fan so a question like that makes my brain explode.
Is photography more about having an eye, or being proficient technically?
There are so many people you meet trying to break into the industry whose photos are not outstanding or they are talented hobbyists but they know every piece of gear ever made and how to use it, film or digital and they talk about, like, how sharp their lens is, different focal lengths and it's like, snooze. People get really into that stuff, it gets to be overkill and boring at a point. I think some of my best work is among my most minimal and more about the content. The technical side of photo is an edge that professionals can have to get work and create images that require years of knowledge and experience to achieve. A creative person with a good eye is everything, especially at first when you're likely shooting rolls of black and white with the old canon from the 1970's. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps Ryan McGinely, as skilled and talented as he is, may not have known much at all about the super technical parts of photo when he was hanging his solo show of snapshots at the Whitney when he was 25 years old.
What do you think of the fact that Polaroid have effectively killed off their instant camera market?
I think I don't really care. Time's is changing. It is too bad that people who are fans of Polaroid are having that taken from them, but its never been my thing. I mostly am turned off by insta-art trickery, even if sometimes it can be really great looking. When 35mm film goes away, though, that's when I'll get super bummed.
http://www.benritter.com
|
|
|
|
