Elena Rossi
Winston Churchill was a British politician, army officer, and writer who served as the UK Prime Minister during World War II. He was also an avid painter, creating over 500 paintings throughout his life. Ironically, a portrait of him by English artist Graham Sutherland, commissioned by the members of the House of Lords and Commons to celebrate his 80th birthday, became one of the most infamous paintings in British history. The painting was disliked by Churchill, who found it deeply unflattering, and it was allegedly destroyed by his wife, Lady Spencer-Churchill, who burned it in the back garden. This incident sparked debates about the artist's intention, the subject's expectations, and the role of art in capturing the truth.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Artist | Graham Sutherland |
| Subject | Winston Churchill |
| Year | 1954 |
| Commission | Celebrating Churchill's 80th birthday |
| Commissioning parties | Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons |
| Criticism | Unflattering, cruel, and disrespectful |
| Fate | Destroyed by burning |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The painting was destroyed
Sutherland was a well-respected English artist, known for his surrealist watercolours and oils, particularly landscapes of the Pembrokeshire coast. He served as an official war artist during World War II and was a modernist painter drawn to depicting his subjects as they truly were, without embellishment.
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. Sutherland insisted on a realistic portrayal, and the final work was a large square canvas, chosen to symbolise Churchill's solidity and endurance. The pose, with Churchill grasping the arms of his chair, recalls a statue.
Churchill loathed the painting, describing it as "filthy" and "malignant", and complaining that it made him "look like a down-and-out drunk". He also felt it depicted him as straining to defecate. He tried to prevent the painting from being presented to him but was persuaded by Conservative MP Charles Doughty to accept it to avoid offending the members of Parliament who had financed it.
After the public presentation, the painting was taken to his country home at Chartwell but was never displayed. It was assumed for a long time that it was destroyed by Lady Spencer-Churchill, who approved of its destruction. However, in research for a biography of Churchill, audio recordings were discovered that revealed the true fate of the portrait. Clementine Churchill, the PM's wife, had asked Grace Hamblin, her secretary at Chartwell: "What do we do Grace? We've got to get rid of it". Hamblin and her brother took the portrait from its hiding place in a cellar at Chartwell, drove it to her brother's house several miles away, and burned it in a huge bonfire.
The painting's destruction remains controversial, with some feeling that it was a necessary act to protect Churchill's feelings and legacy, while others view it as a loss of an important work of art and a form of censorship.
Best Temperature for Dulux Weather Guard Paint Application
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Churchill hated it
Winston Churchill hated the painting by Graham Sutherland, which was commissioned to celebrate his 80th birthday in 1954. The painting was intended as a gift from the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and Sutherland was paid 1,000 guineas for the work.
Churchill intensely disliked the portrait, finding it deeply unflattering. He described it as "filthy" and "malignant", and felt it made him look like a "down-and-out drunk". He also said it depicted him as if he were "straining a stool". Churchill's wife, Clementine, also disliked the painting, and it was rumoured she had it burned in the back garden. However, it was actually Clementine's secretary, Grace Hamblin, and her brother who took the painting and burned it in the dead of night.
Churchill's negative reaction to the painting may have been due to the fact that Sutherland insisted on a realistic portrayal, rather than a fictionalised scene. Sutherland was known for his disinclination to flattery, which some considered cruel. He wanted to capture the real Churchill, not merely how the Prime Minister wished to be seen. This approach may have contributed to Churchill's disdain for the portrait, as he had wanted to be depicted in his robes as a Knight of the Garter, rather than his usual parliamentary dress.
The painting has since become infamous, with some considering its destruction a shameful act. However, others have praised the strength of its likeness, with one commentator calling it "a fabulous portrait. One of the greatest portraits of the 20th century." Despite the controversy, Sutherland stood by his work, maintaining that he painted the Prime Minister as he truly saw him.
Measuring Your Roof for Painting: A Guide
You may want to see also
Explore related products
It was a gift
The portrait of Winston Churchill by Graham Sutherland was commissioned by members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to celebrate the prime minister's 80th birthday in November 1954. It was intended to hang in the Houses of Parliament after Churchill's death, but it was instead given as a personal gift to Churchill himself.
Churchill was known to be an amateur painter himself, having taken up the hobby in 1915 when his political career was at a low ebb. Painting became a source of solace for him, reviving his spirits and acting as an antidote to his frequent bouts of depression. He continued to paint whenever possible, even while serving as British Prime Minister during the Second World War.
Churchill was intensely disliked by the portrait, finding it deeply unflattering. He described it as making him look like a "down-and-out drunk" and as if he were “straining a stool". He even went as far as to say that it made him look “half-witted". Despite this, some critics praised the strength of its likeness, with one calling it "a beautiful work".
As a gift, the portrait failed to bring joy or delight to Churchill, which is ultimately the purpose of a gift. Instead, it caused him distress and offence, leading to its eventual destruction.
The portrait of Winston Churchill by Graham Sutherland thus became known as one of the most famous 'lost' works of art in British history.
Unveiling the Secrets of Valuable Paintings
You may want to see also
Explore related products
It was an honest portrayal
The painting of Winston Churchill by Graham Sutherland is considered one of the most famous "lost" works of art in British history. It was commissioned by the members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to celebrate the Prime Minister's 80th birthday in November 1954.
Sutherland was a well-respected English artist, known for his surreal works with watercolours and oils, particularly landscapes of the Pembrokeshire coast. He served as an official war artist during World War II and was drawn to depicting his subjects as they truly were without embellishment.
Churchill intensely disliked the portrait, finding it deeply unflattering. He described it as "filthy" and "malignant", and complained that it made him "look like a down-and-out drunk". He also felt it portrayed him as straining to defecate. However, others have argued that the painting was an honest and realistic representation of the Prime Minister. Sutherland himself maintained that he painted Churchill as he truly saw him, without embellishment or flattery.
The debate surrounding the painting highlights the subjective nature of art appreciation. Some critics have praised the strength of its likeness, while others have found it unflattering and disgraceful. One commentator on Reddit described it as "honest", acknowledging the cruel process of aging reflected in the painting.
The painting's fate remains a subject of speculation. It was long believed that it was destroyed by Lady Spencer-Churchill, either burned or hidden in a cellar. However, recent revelations suggest that it was secretly taken from Chartwell by Grace Hamblin, the private secretary of Clementine Churchill, and burned in the dead of night at her brother's house.
Mastering the Art of Painting European Streetscapes
You may want to see also
It was a famous work of art
The Portrait of Winston Churchill was a famous work of art by English artist Graham Sutherland. Sutherland was a well-respected artist, known for his surrealist watercolours and oils, particularly landscapes of the Pembrokeshire coast, and he served as an official war artist during World War II.
The portrait of Churchill was commissioned by members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to celebrate the Prime Minister's 80th birthday in November 1954. Sutherland began work on the portrait in August 1954, starting with preparatory sketches and oil studies of Churchill at his home, Chartwell. He wanted to capture the real Churchill as he was, not merely in the way he wished to be portrayed.
The painting was presented to Churchill by both Houses of Parliament at a public ceremony in Westminster Hall on his 80th birthday on 30 November 1954. Churchill intensely disliked the portrait, finding it deeply unflattering. He described it as "filthy" and "malignant", and complained that it made him "look like a down-and-out drunk". He also felt it made him look as if he were "straining a stool".
Despite the painting's infamous reputation, some critics praised it. Aneurin Bevan, a Labour MP and one of Churchill's critics, called it "a beautiful work". However, others, such as Lord Hailsham, a Conservative colleague and friend of Churchill, condemned it as "disgusting".
The painting's fate is a subject of speculation. It was long assumed that it was destroyed by Lady Spencer-Churchill, who had it burned. However, a recording of the couple's private secretary, Grace Hamblin, revealed that she and her brother secretly took the portrait from Chartwell, drove it to her brother's house, and burned it there.
Why Does the First Coat of Paint Look Patchy?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Winston Churchill disliked the painting as he found it deeply unflattering. He described it as "filthy" and "malignant", and complained that it made him "look like a down-and-out drunk".
Churchill had wanted the painting to be directed towards a fictionalised scene, but the artist, Graham Sutherland, insisted on a realistic portrayal. Sutherland was known for his disinclination to flattery, which some considered cruel.
The painting was destroyed within a year. It was assumed that it was burned by Churchill's wife, Clementine, but in 2015, biographer Sonia Purnell revealed that it was actually destroyed by Clementine's secretary, Grace Hamblin, and her brother.
Reactions were mixed. Some critics praised the strength of its likeness, while others condemned it as a disgrace. Aneurin Bevan, a Labour MP and one of Churchill's critics, called it "a beautiful work", while Conservative colleague and friend Lord Hailsham called it "disgusting".
Yes, the painting was a gift to Winston Churchill from the House of Commons and House of Lords to celebrate his 80th birthday. Along with the painting, he was also presented with a book signed by almost every member of both houses and a cheque for £140,000.
