| Portrait of Winston Churchill | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Artist | Graham Sutherland |
| Year | 1954 |
| Medium | oil on canvas |
| Location | Destroyed |
ThePortrait of Winston Churchill was a painting by English artistGraham Sutherland that depicted the British prime minister SirWinston Churchill, created in 1954. It was disliked by Churchill and within a year it was destroyed.
In 1954, Sutherland was commissioned to paint a full-length portrait of Prime Minister SirWinston Churchill. Sutherland received 1,000guineas for the painting, a sum funded by donations from members of theHouse of Commons andHouse of Lords.[1] The painting was presented to Churchill by bothHouses of Parliament at a public ceremony inWestminster Hall on his 80th birthday on 30 November 1954.[2]
Finding the depiction deeply unflattering, Churchill disliked the portrait intensely. After its public presentation, the painting was taken to his country home atChartwell but not displayed. For a long time it was assumed that it was destroyed byLady Spencer-Churchill; however, in the course of research for a biography of Churchill, audio recordings were cited that attribute the destruction to Grace Hamblin, Churchill's private secretary. According to this, the painting was taken by her and her brother to a secluded house and burned. Lady Spencer-Churchill learned of the deed the next morning and approved.[3]
By the time the portrait had been commissioned, Churchill was an elder statesman nearing the end of his second period as prime minister. Sutherland had gained a reputation as amodernist painter through some recent successful portraits, such asSomerset Maugham in 1949. He was drawn to depicting subjects as they truly were without embellishment; some sitters considered his disinclination to flattery as a form of cruelty or disparagement to his subjects.[1]
Sutherland and Churchill had different hopes for the painting. Churchill had wanted to direct the composition towards a fictionalised scene but Sutherland had insisted upon a realistic portrayal, one described bySimon Schama as "No bulldog, no baby face. Just an obituary in paint".[4] Churchill also wished to be depicted in his robes as aKnight of the Garter, but the commission specified that he should be shown in his usual parliamentary dress: a black coat, withwaistcoat and striped trousers, and a spottedbow tie.[5]
Sutherland made preparatory charcoal sketches of Churchill at a handful of sittings atChartwell from August 1954, concentrating on Churchill's hands and face. After completing these sketches, he made some oil studies of his subject. Additionally, Sutherland worked from photographs byElsbeth Juda. He brought his preliminary materials to his studio to create the final work on a large square canvas, the shape chosen to symbolize Churchill's solidity and endurance, embodied in a remark that Churchill made, "I am a rock".[citation needed]
The pose, with Churchill grasping the arms of his chair, recalls the statue ofU.S. PresidentAbraham Lincoln at theLincoln Memorial inWashington, D.C. Churchill is shown scowling, slightly slumped forward, surrounded by wintry grey, brown and black tones. Sutherland was reluctant to discuss the work in progress with Churchill and showed the subject few of his working materials. Lady Spencer-Churchill thought it was a good resemblance – "really quite alarmingly like him" – but also said it made him look too cross, while recognising that it was a familiar expression. Churchill's sonRandolph thought the portrait made him look "disenchanted".[citation needed]
Lady Spencer-Churchill viewed the completed portrait on 20 November 1954 and took a photograph back to her husband. It was his first view of the work and he was deeply upset. He described it toLord Moran as "filthy" and "malignant",[6] and complained that it made him "look like a down-and-out drunk who has been picked out of the gutter inthe Strand."[7][8] Churchill also declared, "It makes me look as if I were straining a stool" (that is, defecating with difficulty).[9] With ten days remaining, he sent a note to Sutherland stating that "the painting, however masterly in execution, is not suitable"[7] and declared that the ceremony would go ahead without it. In response, Sutherland maintained that he painted the Prime Minister as he truly saw him and that the depiction was an honest and realistic representation.Conservative MPCharles Doughty persuaded Churchill that the presentation had to go ahead to avoid offending the members of Parliament who financed it.[10]
The presentation ceremony atWestminster Hall was recorded by theBBC. In his acceptance speech, Churchill remarked on the unprecedented honour shown to him and described the painting (in a remark often considered abackhanded compliment) as "a remarkable example of modern art", combining "force and candour". Other reactions were mixed; some critics praised the strength of its likeness, but others condemned it as a disgrace. WhileAneurin Bevan (aLabour MP and one of Churchill's critics) called it "a beautiful work",Lord Hailsham (a Conservative colleague and friend) called it "disgusting".[11]
The painting 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, who took it back toChartwell and refused to display it. Requests to borrow the painting for exhibitions of Sutherland's work were rejected.[citation needed]
In 1978, it was reported that Lady Spencer-Churchill had destroyed the painting within a year of its arrival atChartwell, by breaking it into pieces and having them incinerated to prevent it from causing further distress to her husband.[3] Lady Spencer-Churchill had previously destroyed earlier portraits of her husband that she disliked, including sketches byWalter Sickert andPaul Maze.[12] She had hidden the Sutherland portrait in the cellars at Chartwell and employed her private secretaryGrace Hamblin and Hamblin's brother to remove it in the middle of the night and burn it in a remote location.[3] Many commentators were aghast at thedestruction of the work of art, and Sutherland condemned it as an act of vandalism; others upheld the Churchills' right to dispose of their property as they saw fit.[13]
Some preparatory sketches for Sutherland's painting are held by theNational Portrait Gallery, London. It is thought that a copy of the portrait is held at theCarlton Club, also in London, although it is not on display.[14] TheBeaverbrook Art Gallery also has some of the studies Sutherland did in preparation for the portrait in its collection.[15] In April 2024 one of Sutherland's studies for the portrait was put on display atBlenheim Palace, before a planned auction in June 2024.[16] It sold for £660,000 ($842,490), the second highest price at auction to date for a portrait of Churchill.[17]
Within the events of the 2016 Netflix seriesThe Crown, the ninth episode of the first season, entitled "Assassins", dramatises the creation, unveiling, and destruction of the portrait. Sutherland is portrayed byStephen Dillane.[18] Although historical evidence suggests that Churchill's secretaries were the ones who actually destroyed the painting, the episode depicts Lady Spencer-Churchill watching it burn on the grounds ofChartwell House. The episode wonJohn Lithgow, who played Churchill, aPrimetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series.
The burnt remains of the painting can be seen in the Earth antiquities collection of President Sarkoff in the 1978Blake’s 7 episode ‘Bounty’.