Here is some inside scoop on Ronnie Wood's latest work "Skulls On Stage" which is just about to be released! It is the first Ronnie work to feature the Stones tongue logo and Ronnie collectors will no doubt spot it has all the hallmarks of an extremely popular and fast selling piece.

It will be available in two formats:

Paper Limited Edition of 290
Digital and Screen Print on Somerset Velvet Paper with an image size of 23.5" x 33"



Collectors Limited Edition of 118
Digital and Screen Print with Gold leafe on Canvas with an image size of 31.5" x 43"



It is really a very affordable price for a full band piece that will no doubt appreciate in value rapidly! As always I have arranged a special discount for IORR members to ensure they benefit from a totally unbeatable price.

I will arrange for you to pay and have your art shipped direct from Ronnie's global distributor. Please just drop me an email at mattleeuk@gmail.com or call me on +44 (0)20 8810 0202 for more details.

My wife should would love that. Ha!

this is much better than his other recent ones, I really like it and Keith is especially well captured as he looked on the ABB tour.

Mick's face is a little weird and what is up with the skulls anyway, those I can do without.

Just love the ABB stage set with the onstage seating, very well done and all the deep red really catches the eye.

Good capture of Charlie as well.

oh yeah, the tilted tongue on the giant screen is also good -- they often did that at the end of the shows, really just after the band had just gone off stage.


plexi

kinda thought we might see a nude of Kat at some point

not very realistic, are they?
where are the backing musicians?

Quote
Adrian-L
not very realistic, are they?
where are the backing musicians?

It's on the b-stage

Yeah, it's on the B-stage, but Darryl and Chuck are probably standing on the left... Too late to complain now, I already bought one and I'am very happy.
Also happy with other purchases from Matt.

X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-21 21:13 by UrbanSteel.

keep Kat in Jimmy Choo's and vodka - buy now!

This has nothing to do with art.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-21 13:43 by django.

And who are you to make that decission?
He's no Michelangelo or da Vinci, he's Wood.
As an art historian (from Columbia University, NYC) I don't feel comfortable defining what's art and what's not. It's really up to each and every one of us. If it touches you - I'd say it's art.
If you say: You Don't Move Me - then you shouldn't buy it.
I bought it, because I think it captures some great memories from the ABB tour. And I love some of Ronnie's stuff. Not all of it - but I've bought a few that I really like.
It's your right to like or dislike them, but you're not the one to define what's art, remember.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-21 15:55 by Addicted.

so if someone likes paris hiltons song he should call it art aswell?
of course tastes are different. but its just not true that the main criteria for art is whether people like it or not. something can touch you, but its still not art!
and ronnies stuff is just really...well far from having any artistic touch...sorry!

Guess you have a degree in art history, guitarbastard? From Madrid? Or where?
Defining what's art and what's not is pointless, really. But as an art historian, I think any colleague of mine would agree that at least some of Ronnie's work, that I happen to be very familiar with, is indeed art. Not all of is can be said to be great art - objectively speaking. But some of his works have a certain other value. (No, not his autograph!!!) If you don't get the drift - it's hard to explain. This is all about feelings. For the band, for certain moments, memories from a tour. That's worth something, too. It's pointless and quite rude to just throw out a sentence like: "far from having any artistic touch". A lot of art critics in major newspapers will disagree with you, and most owners of his works, too.
If people chose to buy Ronnie's work, and love/like his work, that's their business. It's their own friggin walls and money - nobody else's.

Quote
timbernardis
kinda thought we might see a nude of Kat at some point

[www.iorr.org]

I've got two of Ronnie's prints, Wild Horses and Conversation Piece. I really don't like the greater majority of his stuff, and this latest falls into that category too ... it really doesn't do anything for me at all.

Now Seb Kruger doin' the Stones ? Hah, different story altogether. Luuuuuuuuuuuuuurv Kruger.

Quote
erikjjf

Quote
timbernardis
kinda thought we might see a nude of Kat at some point

[www.iorr.org]

The painting really didn't look a lot like her, I guess it's more of an abstractionist type of thing. Those photos of her underneath it were hot, tho. Whatever else we may say about her, she's a cutie, so good for Ronnie.

"so if someone likes paris hiltons song he should call it art aswell?
of course tastes are different. but its just not true that the main criteria for art is whether people like it or not. something can touch you, but its still not art!
and ronnies stuff is just really...well far from having any artistic touch...sorry!"

Thats total rubbish!

"Art refers to a diverse range of human activities, creations, and expressions that are appealing to the senses or emotions of a human individual. The word "art" may be used to cover all or any of the arts, including music, literature and other forms. ..."

Quote
ablett
"so if someone likes paris hiltons song he should call it art aswell?
of course tastes are different. but its just not true that the main criteria for art is whether people like it or not. something can touch you, but its still not art!
and ronnies stuff is just really...well far from having any artistic touch...sorry!"

Thats total rubbish!

"Art refers to a diverse range of human activities, creations, and expressions that are appealing to the senses or emotions of a human individual. The word "art" may be used to cover all or any of the arts, including music, literature and other forms. ..."

ok lets agree. ronnies PAINtings are art! the kind of art bored mid 40 housewifes do at the creativity course...hehe. na, just my opinion.

Your like the failed muscian who became a rock critic. Its great to criticize but do you have a superior alternative?

Much art is maligned but if the buyer enjoys that art then so be it. And I'd say Ronnies are pretty damn popular.

Quote
ablett
Your like the failed muscian who became a rock critic. Its great to criticize but do you have a superior alternative?

Much art is maligned but if the buyer enjoys that art then so be it. And I'd say Ronnies are pretty damn popular.

i'm not a big rockstar but i live on my guitarplaying (so much for the failed musician). alternative to ronnies paintings? well thousands of giftet artists all over the world. open your eyes...
and with all due respect: your definition of art is just a little bit to simple.
do you know dj bobo? he's very popular...;-) no hard feelings!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-05-22 02:32 by guitarbastard.

Oh please, if you wanna go abstract then your on the wrong thread. I suffered art college for eons and live in the town the modern british art movement was founded....

All I'm saying is thats there's many on here who enjoy Ronnies art so try and be a tad more constructive with your criticism!

Assume the skulls are a Big Artistic Statement Ronnie's making?

Quote
Adrian-L
not very realistic, are they?
where are the backing musicians?

why would you want them there anyway!!!!!! its ronnies picture of the STONES, whats the problem?

What do they cost?

Collector's edition: $1,950 and $2,450
Paper edition: $1,650 and $1,950 .
That was the introduction offer, so I believe only the first 15 customers got to buy them at that prize, if I got it right.
You should really ask Matt Lee. His mail address is in the first post. He's got some fantastic stuff.
Good luck!

"If it sells, it's art."


Not being critical, just quoting. ;-)


Addicted, I do have a serious question for you re. Ronnie's art. While he has ventured into what I would term "original" territory, many of his pieces are paintings of other photographic images or drawings - the seeming equivalent of him looking at a photo/drawing and painting his own version of it -- or extracting elements from several photos and using them in a whole. Perhaps the process is a pun on the term "still life" (ok, that was a joke), or the painting equivalent of 'sampling'(not so much a joke)?

Then again, it _could_ be compared to the musicians technique of using elements of other musicians' playing/styles to create their own. In this case Ronnie is 'borrowing' the other/previous artists' subject and composition and either 'covering' it, or incorporating it into his own composition.

I'm not sure I'd make that comparison myself, but one could argue it I suppose.

I'm curious how this technique is viewed in the art community, and , as a historian, you would seem closer to that collective than perhaps some others are.

J