Rolling Stones Gorilla Logo Artist Slams Critics

Walton Ford offering limited-edition etching of widely seen gorilla logo


PK Shop

By Patrick Doyle
August 5, 2013 12:30 PM ET

When the Rolling Stones were organizing their 50th anniversary celebrations, Mick Jagger approached his friend, contemporary artist Walton Ford – who has made a career painting naturalist scenes – to design a logo. In the Seventies spirit of the National Lampoon magazine and "grotesque ungerground comics," Ford repurposed one of his sympathetic paintings of King Kong, adding the band’s famous tongue-and-lips logo. "I saw the Rolling Stones as a sort of silverback,” Ford tells Rolling Stone. “All the metaphors of King Kong and all of that are applicable – their kind of enormity of their accomplishment over the period of 50 years.”

The band loved the image. “The irreverence of Walton Ford’s imagery captured the spirit of the tour,” they said in a statement. They used it on the cover of their 50th anniversary compilation GRRR!, and in marketing their massive "50 and Counting" tour, at one point displaying the piece at 50 locations around the world.

But some fans weren’t as excited about the logo. “A lot of people didn’t like it at all,” Ford says. “That was good. I was glad that they didn’t like it. I mean, the last people who I wanted to please were Rolling Stones fans.”

Ford continues, “They are really nasty. It’s a general rule they have a fan base that just seem to be always angry at the Rolling Stones for a lot of reasons. They’ve got their own grudges. I shouldn’t say that I didn’t really care. I probably did care, but when the Rolling Stones were doing their best work, they were a step ahead of the people that loved them so much. I thought, ‘How cool that I get an opportunity to piss their fans off?'"

The logo is now for sale as a limited-edition etching of 1,000 signed and numbered by Ford, available at the Paul Kasmin Shop. “They are really beautiful,” says Ford, who has made a practice of creating etchings for the last decade. “I just go and work at this print shop and we use all the old tools that were used by Rembrandt, you know, this is a very ancient technique of marking on copper plate and making prints by hand. It seemed appropriate to do sort of an anachronistic tribute print to the 50th..”

The piece doesn't come cheap though; the price, available upon request, is over $5,000. “It’s just this is going to be an elitist, kind of expensive thing because the processes are expensive," says Ford, who's still buzzing about the experience. "I was born in 1960 and I had an older brother who collected records. The Rolling Stones were pretty much it for us growing up. That’s what we aspired to be – that sort of attitude."

[www.rollingstone.com]

That made me laugh...a little to close to home, eh?

I remember my initial reaction to the gorilla was shock, it was completely unexpected. So I can't say I loved it from the beginning, but I never hated it. It grew on me and now I love it, can't imagine anything better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-05 21:52 by latebloomer.

Hah.

Boy did he put me in my place! I'm befuddled...

I don't hate it. Just find it a bit silly.

As I do his response.

I don't hate it anymore... but I still don't like it

I never hated it. I can't say I loved it either. I kinda like it. I knew it was a part of their marketing campaign and they probably wanted something that stood out. This accomplished it.

a sore thumb sticks out too...as does a train wreck...oh and the cover of 70's sucking....

Hah, I did like it, and still do. A kind of classical "Stonesy" anti-thesis to all that formal 50 years celebration hype. The guys still have some spark - and humour - in them.

- Doxa

Quote
bye bye johnny
Walton Ford: I mean, the last people who I wanted to please were Rolling Stones fans. They are really nasty. It’s a general rule they have a fan base that just seem to be always angry at the Rolling Stones for a lot of reasons. They’ve got their own grudges.

He probably spends lots of time on IORR Tell Me

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

Love it even more, great background story.

Quote
Doxa
Hah, I did like it, and still do. A kind of classical "Stonesy" anti-thesis to all that formal 50 years celebration hype. The guys still have some spark - and humour - in them.

- Doxa

dammit..-I was gonna write the same thing..

For those who are among the number of "a lot of people didn't like it at all," I suppose this gives them license now to hate/dislike the creator of GRRRegory as well.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
bye bye johnny
Walton Ford: I mean, the last people who I wanted to please were Rolling Stones fans. They are really nasty. It’s a general rule they have a fan base that just seem to be always angry at the Rolling Stones for a lot of reasons. They’ve got their own grudges.

He probably spends lots of time on IORR Tell Me

LOL.

~"Love is Strong"~

I still don't like it. I believe it was easier and quicker to come up with something silly(wellcome to the 21th century!) than something meaningful. But if Mick likes it, it's fine; no big deal.
Rock and roll,
Mops

I didn't like it at all first, for about two days or so. "Shock" is the right word for what I felt, when I first saw it. But I later realized, that my anger had mostly to do with the way the album was announced and revealed, not with the cover itself. All this keeping in suspense and talk of a "big announcement" over weeks in a time, when there were already rumours about concerts and a real big announcement (for fans) could only have referred to an album of new songs or some concerts. I believe the disappointment, that it was just a hits album (which was something to expect for an anniversary anyway), and the sight of this twitting, smirking gorilla was simply too much for several fans. They weren't in the mood for this kind of humour. Their reactions probably wouldn't have been as harsh without this big campaign and promising of exciting news.

It took me a while to like the cover, but now I do. Something in the gorilla's eyes in combination with the tongue makes me smile, if I look into his face long enough. Doxa is right, it's an anti-thesis to the formal 50 years celebration hype. I like the Roman numerals in the picture above (do the etchings have them?), which increase this effect even more. They seem to suggest, the Stones are an important part of history, almost ancient, reigning as emperors of Rock 'n' Roll for 50 years - so treat them with respect - and then they have this silly creature next to the dates.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-08-06 00:22 by StrawberriesBlueberries.

Rubbish

Quote
rollmops
I still don't like it. I believe it was easier and quicker to come up with something silly(wellcome to the 21th century!) than something meaningful. But if Mick likes it, it's fine; no big deal.
Rock and roll,
Mops

With respect what would you define as "meaningful". An MRI of Mick's Larynx?, Keith's Fiji/NZ Pathology Results from 2006? One of Charlies room sketches?

I doubt 3 of us could agree, let alone this community.

I like the , now revealed, intent behind GRRRegory. Art........ can be a tad left brained, hair brained or even no brained imo.

If they'd stuck the YaYa on a T-Rex, that may have been a nice dig in response to the "Old Dinosaur's" tag they've acquired.

Or X-RAY's of each member walking, evoking the long time moniker of every under 40 Sub Editor in the Western World "The Strolling Bones"

I'm having fun here....

Maybe, an unreleased image of Keith's Druggy squallor, to shatter the chic.

Ronnie's Back Stmt's from the 80's

Mick's oil collection, Charlies Horses, Bill's handwritten diary notes rating the ladies.....

They are just talented guys, who have provided me/us/the world with some great songs, documented lives and legends to embelish it all.

I will say Mick and Charlie seem well aware of the gap between their reality and our perception, Keith and Ronnie wish to blend the two.

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
bye bye johnny
Walton Ford: I mean, the last people who I wanted to please were Rolling Stones fans. They are really nasty. It’s a general rule they have a fan base that just seem to be always angry at the Rolling Stones for a lot of reasons. They’ve got their own grudges.

He probably spends lots of time on IORR Tell Me

LOL - my first thought, too!

ROCKMAN

Quote
SKILLS

Quote
rollmops
I still don't like it. I believe it was easier and quicker to come up with something silly(wellcome to the 21th century!) than something meaningful

With respect what would you define as "meaningful"

If I may jump in here, the GRRR! set (such an unoriginal, overused title) should have been called 50 & Counting--that's what they named their tour right? For the first time ever--at least in recent memory--a Rolling Stones tour has been named something other than what their current album or compilation release is. Even the tour accompanying Forty Licks was called the "Licks" tour. Yes, you may be saying that No Security was part of the Bridges To Babylon tour, but it was actually a separate arenas-only tour supporting the No Security live album which developed from the B2B tour.

Both the title of GRRR! and the cover concept suggest that not a lot of thought went into the initial planning of the 50th anniversary celebration, especially not the title and cover concept of the recent compilation. In fact, we now know that Mick was not on board with the idea of touring until the last minute, and even into the spring of 2012 it looked like even to the band--as Charlie Watts revealed in an interview later that year--that a tour might not even happen at all. It seems that GRRR! was hastily conceived and compiled, and the art work is uninventive and third rate--a grammar school student with a box of fingerpaint could come up with similar results.

If given a bit more time on conceptualization, they (or Mick) might have come up with something better, like 50 & Counting. If Mick can't even be bothered to come up with an original title for a compilation album, or a dull, amateurish King Kong rip-off for a cover concept, then it doesn't bode well for a prospective new and original album down the road.

GRRRegory is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad gimmic. Most of the people I know in daily life strongly disliked the cover. The reaction was not one of 'oh thats funny, very tongue n cheek.. punny, etc..', instead it was one of 'Did the Stones really think I would like this??' Dignified offense is how I would describe it.

Most of us are not 12 year old kids. I'm 30, most dedicated Stones fans I know are 45+, and honestly, none of us are too pleased by the cartoon crap...

Someone who was around, tell me how the Harlem Shuffle music video went over back in the day...










1. As a concept is it just very demeaning. That is the bottom line. I remember the reveal and seeing the cartoon eyes and my heart sank. Really guys... Do you need a mascot on this tour? Do you plan on selling plush toys for the kiddos? It reminds me of baseball games and how it was all about the game when I was a kid, but now it is all about the mascot going through the audience for the kids. Is it still about the music?





2. Happy to piss off fans? Seriously? That is certainly a very punk way to look at criticism... Maybe Walton Ford just did a terrible job on this one? The best artists in the world can take criticism with a grain of salt. If most people strongly dislike your work, you might want to re-think it.

3. I feel the same way about GRRRegory as I do about the previous animation attempts...













I am not 'angry' but certainly disappointed that the Stones would pick something so childish as a logo/artwork/mascot/promotional design. They are better than this. If they ever do a final album I hope they put more thought into the artwork than Walton Ford did.

-Drake

It's classic pop art with a dash of kitsch. This kind of art was quite common in cultural left circles in the late 60s and early 70s. It's, of course, consciously tasteless. And, nowadays, politically harmless.
Some artists here in Sweden were sentenced for political art then. But this gorilla is very apolitical. Otherwise the very conservative Sir Michael wouldn't have approved it.

When I listened to the Mick interview on the NPR thread, it rubbed me the wrong way when the interviewer asked him "Want to talk about Gimme Shelter? " and he says "No, not really, but I will.". I have the same reaction to this.

I think the artwork is OK, I just don't quite understand it. I mean, why a gorilla? The Stones have never used an animal in any of their promotional artwork before, have they? Is there any significance that I'm not getting?

Oh, I've just read the artists comments. He sees the Stones as being a bit like a silver back gorilla. OKAY, hmm...

For me, it's simple--whatever it does or doesn't mean, it's an aesthetically ugly picture that I wouldn't want to see every day on my wall. (Unlike the tongue'n'lips logo.) BUT I am immensely relieved, having been told that it was Keith's bright idea. Keith can go back to being virtually flawless now.

Quote
drake
Someone who was around, tell me how the Harlem Shuffle music video went over back in the day...

The Harlem Shuffle video concept was lifted from Hollywood, or at least bas meant to look as if it were lifted from Holltwood. A number of films from that time were combining live animation with real action and characters, most notably in 1988 with the film called Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.

The difference from the GRRR! cover in the Harlem Shuffle video was that there was a whole cast of animators, one famous (Ralph Bakshi), one eventually to become noted (John Kricfalusi, who went on to create The Ren & Stimpy Show), plus animators Lynne Naylor, Jim Smith, Bob Jaques, Vicky Jenson, and Pat Ventura, as well as two other unknown animators.

I don't remember people reacting strongly to the video--they either liked the song or they didn't, and some did not. The video had a Hollywood look to it, and the animations seemed somehow familiar and Disney-esque, professionally done. This was the first appearance of The Stones in 3 years--their longest stretch of inactivity at that time--so I'm sure that Jagger was very concerned that the video be polished, professional, and well-received, particularly since the video featured an R&B number that was nearly as old as The Stones themselves.





On the other hand, with the cover of GRRR!, you get the sense that Jagger just didn't care. He hires one hack artist, who himself doesn't seem to care judging from his comments, who produces an image that looks as though it were painted with mud.

Further reinforcing the lack of inventiveness is the name that Jagger originally wanted for the 50 & Counting tour--"F&%$ Off!!!"

Quote
Big Al
The Stones have never used an animal in any of their promotional artwork before, have they?

Once, but it seemed to make a bit more sense.