Isabella Flores
Graham Sutherland's portrait of Winston Churchill is one of the most famous 'lost' works of art in British history. Sutherland was commissioned to paint the portrait by the House of Commons to celebrate the Prime Minister's 80th birthday in November 1954. However, Churchill hated the portrait, describing it as filthy and malignant, and it was destroyed on the orders of Lady Churchill. Despite this, some have defended the painting as an honest and realistic representation of Churchill, and it has been recreated based on surviving sketches, studies, and photographs.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Artist's intention | Sutherland wanted to paint Churchill as he saw him, without embellishment. |
| Subject's expectation | Churchill wanted to be depicted in his robes as a Knight of the Garter and direct the composition towards a fictionalised scene. |
| Commission requirements | The commission specified that Churchill should be shown in his usual parliamentary dress. |
| Subject's reaction | Churchill described the painting as "filthy" and "malignant", saying it made him look like a "down-and-out drunk" and that it made him "look as if I were straining a stool". |
| Fate of the painting | It was believed to have been destroyed by Lady Spencer-Churchill, but audio recordings attributed the destruction to Grace Hamblin, Churchill's private secretary, who burned it with her brother. |
| Artistic style | Sutherland was a modernist painter influenced by Picasso, known for his abstracted landscapes. |
| Composition | The painting was created on a large square canvas to symbolise Churchill's solidity and endurance. |
| Hands | Sutherland focused on getting the hands right and succeeded by most accounts. |
| Cigar | Churchill rejected a sketch featuring a cigar, saying it made him look like a "toffee-apple". |
| Realism | Some critics argue that the painting was an accurate, honest, and authentic representation of Churchill. |
| Lighting | The painting was described as "too black", "too blue", or "too brown" by Sutherland himself. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Churchill's wife, Clementine, disliked the painting
Clementine Churchill, wife of Winston Churchill, initially liked the portrait. She gave "every indication of liking it" and was "very moved and full of praise for it", according to Churchill and Sutherland's friend, Somerset Maugham. However, Clementine later agreed with her husband that the painting was unsuitable and should be destroyed.
Clementine Churchill was instrumental in the destruction of the painting. She is said to have asked her secretary, Grace Hamblin, "What do we do, Grace? We've got to get rid of it". Clementine had the painting hidden in the cellars at Chartwell, and employed Hamblin and her brother to remove it in the middle of the night and burn it in a remote location.
The painting was commissioned by the House of Commons to celebrate the Prime Minister's 80th birthday in November 1954. It was painted by Graham Sutherland, a well-respected English artist known for his surreal works with watercolours and oils. Sutherland was a modernist painter, influenced by Picasso, and best known for his abstracted landscapes.
Sutherland and Churchill had differing visions for the portrait. Churchill wanted a fictionalised scene, while Sutherland insisted on a realistic portrayal. Churchill wished to be depicted in his robes as a Knight of the Garter, but the commission specified that he be shown in his usual parliamentary dress. Sutherland made preparatory sketches and oil studies, working from photographs by Elsbeth Juda. He created the final work on a large square canvas, chosen to symbolise Churchill's solidity and endurance.
Churchill hated the portrait, describing it as "filthy" and "malignant". He felt it made him "look like a down-and-out drunk". He initially tried to cancel the presentation of the painting, but was persuaded to go ahead to avoid offending the members of Parliament who had financed it. Clementine shared her husband's negative opinion of the painting and took action to destroy it.
Cutting and Pasting: Paint to Word
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Churchill's view of the painting
Winston Churchill was not a fan of Graham Sutherland's portrait of him. He described it as "filthy" and "malignant", and complained that it made him "look like a down-and-out drunk who has been picked out of the gutter in the Strand". He also said it made him look like he was "straining a stool".
Churchill's wife, Lady Spencer-Churchill, viewed the completed portrait and took a photograph back to her husband. It was his first view of the work and he was deeply upset. With ten days remaining before the portrait was to be presented to him, he sent a note to Sutherland stating that "the painting, however masterly in execution, is not suitable" and declared that the ceremony would go ahead without it.
Churchill and Sutherland had different visions for the painting. Churchill wanted to direct the composition towards a fictionalised scene, perhaps including his robes as a Knight of the Garter, but Sutherland insisted upon a realistic portrayal. He wanted to depict his subjects as they truly were without embellishment. Some sitters considered his disinclination to flattery as a form of cruelty or disparagement.
Churchill's doctor, Lord Moran, worried that Sutherland would give up and "paint the legend". Clementine Churchill, however, liked the portrait, saying she was "very moved and full of praise for it".
Sutherland, in defence of his work, maintained that he painted the Prime Minister as he truly saw him and that the depiction was an honest and realistic representation. He told Lord Beaverbrook in 1961: "For better or worse, I am the kind of painter who is governed entirely by what he sees".
Quickly Clean Your Gas Stovetop's Painted Surface
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The painting's intended location
The painting was initially intended to hang in the Houses of Parliament after Churchill's death. However, it was instead given as a personal gift to Churchill himself, who took it back to his home, Chartwell, and refused to display it.
Churchill had wanted to direct the composition of the painting towards a fictionalised scene, perhaps depicting him in his robes as a Knight of the Garter. However, the commission specified that he should be shown in his usual parliamentary dress: a black coat, waistcoat, striped trousers, and a spotted bow tie. Sutherland, who had gained a reputation as a modernist painter, insisted on a realistic portrayal, one described by Simon Schama as, "No bulldog, no baby face. Just an obituary in paint".
Churchill's wife, Clementine, viewed the completed portrait and took a photograph back to her husband. Churchill was deeply upset by the painting, describing it as "filthy" and "malignant". He complained that it made him "look like a down-and-out drunk who has been picked out of the gutter". He also declared, "It makes me look as if I were straining a stool". Clementine "liked the portrait very much" and found it "very moving".
Despite Churchill's dislike for the painting, the presentation went ahead to avoid offending the members of Parliament who financed it. Churchill accepted the painting, but it was taken to Chartwell and never displayed. It was reported that Clementine had the painting destroyed within a year of its arrival, breaking it into pieces and having them incinerated to prevent it from causing further distress to her husband. Clementine had previously destroyed earlier portraits of her husband that she disliked.
The original painting was lost, but a re-creation of Sutherland's portrait has been produced, reproducing as faithfully as possible the psychological depth and the life of the fascinating painting.
Creative Ways to Decorate a Room Without Painting
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The painting's destruction
The painting was intended to hang in the Houses of Parliament after Churchill's death. However, it was given to Churchill himself, who took it to Chartwell and refused to display it. Requests to borrow the painting for exhibitions of Sutherland's work were rejected. Churchill had wanted to direct the composition of the painting towards a fictionalised scene, perhaps depicting him in his robes as a Knight of the Garter. However, the commission specified that he should be shown in his usual parliamentary dress. Sutherland insisted upon a realistic portrayal, one described by Simon Schama as: "No bulldog, no baby face. Just an obituary in paint".
Churchill loathed the painting, describing it as "filthy" and "malignant", and complaining that it made him "look like a down-and-out drunk who has been picked out of the gutter". He also declared: "It makes me look as if I were straining a stool". Clementine Churchill, his wife, initially gave every indication of liking it. However, she later asked Grace Hamblin, her secretary at Chartwell: "What do we do Grace? We've got to get rid of it". Clementine had hidden the painting in the cellars at Chartwell. Hamblin and her brother removed it in the middle of the night and burned it in a remote location.
The destruction of the painting was kept secret until the publication of Mary Soames's biography of Clementine in 1979. In the intervening years, Churchill had prevented the painting from being seen by the public. It was reported in 1978 that Clementine had destroyed the painting within a year of its arrival at Chartwell, breaking it into pieces and having them incinerated to prevent it from causing further distress to her husband. Clementine had previously destroyed earlier portraits of her husband that she disliked.
Krylon Farm Implement Paint: A Direct Solution for Rust?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The artist's reputation
Graham Sutherland was a well-respected English artist known for his surrealist works with watercolours and oils. He was influenced by Picasso and was best known for his strange, abstracted landscapes depicting war and tragedy. Sutherland had served as an official war artist during World War II and was commissioned to design a new central tapestry for Coventry Cathedral. He had also gained a reputation as a portraitist, having painted Winston Churchill's long-time friend and sometime goad, Lord Beaverbrook, and other portraits during the 1950s. By the early 1950s, he had established a good reputation as a portrait painter for leading figures.
Sutherland was a modernist painter drawn to depicting his subjects as they truly were without embellishment. Some sitters considered his disinclination to flattery as a form of cruelty or disparagement. He had a reputation for his sharp eye and honest, authentic portrayals.
Sutherland's portrait of Winston Churchill is probably one of the most famous 'lost' works of art in British history. It was commissioned by the House of Commons and the House of Lords to celebrate the Prime Minister's 80th birthday in November 1954. Sutherland wanted to capture the real Churchill, not merely how he wished to be portrayed, and so he insisted on a realistic portrayal. Churchill, on the other hand, wanted to direct the composition towards a fictionalised scene and be depicted in his robes as a Knight of the Garter.
Churchill loathed the portrait, describing it as "filthy" and "malignant". He thought it made him look like a "down-and-out drunk" and that it portrayed him as defecating with difficulty. He tried to prevent the portrait from being presented to him, but ultimately accepted it. However, he took it back to Chartwell and refused to display it. Requests to borrow the painting for exhibitions of Sutherland's work were rejected.
The portrait was reportedly destroyed within a year of its arrival at Chartwell, on the orders of Lady Churchill. It is believed that she had it broken into pieces and incinerated to prevent it from causing further distress to her husband. However, there are differing accounts of who was responsible for the destruction, with some sources attributing it to Grace Hamblin, Churchill's private secretary, who carried out the deed with her brother.
Despite the controversy surrounding the portrait, it has gained recognition in more recent years. Leading historian Simon Schama gave Sutherland's portrait a dominant place in his acclaimed television series and accompanying book, 'The Face of Britain: The Nation through Its Portraits'. He described it as "the most powerful image of a Great Briton ever ex [ecuted]".
Primer Planning: Painting Your Truck
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Churchill wanted to be depicted in his robes as a Knight of the Garter, but the commission specified that he should be shown in his usual parliamentary dress. Sutherland insisted on a realistic portrayal, which Churchill described as "filthy" and "malignant".
Clementine Churchill "liked the portrait very much" and was "very moved and full of praise for it".
The painting was destroyed on the orders of Lady Churchill. It is believed that she had it burned in the back garden.
No, the painting was never displayed. It was taken to Chartwell and hidden in a cellar.
Public opinion of the painting was mixed. Some considered it honest and authentic while others found it unflattering and unappealing.
![Catalogue of the Sutherland collection [of portraits, views, and miscellaneous prints] .. Volume 1](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41fwBISMGcL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
![Catalogue of the Sutherland Collection [Of Portraits, Views, and Miscellaneous Prints] ..](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71F9D6l7h7L._AC_UL320_.jpg)
![Historic Framed Print, [George Sutherland, full-length portrait, seated at desk, facing right], 17-7/8" x 21-7/8"](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51ZlIKZdheL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
![Historic Framed Print, [George Sutherland, half-length portrait, seated at desk], 17-7/8" x 21-7/8"](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41LrBv6QooL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
