Offensive portrait of Churchill destroyed

Graham Sutherland (1903-1980) continues to be remembered, above all else, as the artist whose portrait of Sir Winston Churchill so offended the venerable figure that he had it destroyed.
It was not that the portrait was wilfully "modern" in style, or even poorly executed. Rather, it was an uncompromisingly honest and forthright portrait of a man, who was after all, in his early 80s, frail and physically exhausted. Yet the portrait was also a sympathetic study that managed to convey the gravitas of the sitter, while at the same time revealing an endearing vulnerability.
This reality however collided spectacularly with the image Churchill liked to project of himself; that of the man of action, the no-nonsense, indomitable wartime leader. Given the bold frankness and honesty of the picture, Churchill's reaction to it was perhaps inevitable.
In retrospect, the whole "Churchill Portrait Controversy" proved a double-edged sword for Sutherland. On the one hand, it was testament to the potency of his portraiture. But on the other, the painting brought him a great deal of unwanted and unwarranted notoriety, especially in the popular press.
english.ohmynews.com/

[@CEPHALEXIN323]

Came here cause of the Netflix original The Crown

[@giorassiccuriosity1796]

Metal Head 323 same!

[@pettyboo1128]

lol samee

[@run_finger_run]

Same

[@vonnababeimyamansfantasy8436]

Me too 🤣🤣

[@aktchungrabanio6467]

Which seems to keep twisting the facts on each episode, doesn't it?

[@Tehn00bifierer]

"..The portrait was later destroyed by lady Churchill" Thats the part where i lost it.

[@sclint1427]

0:48 The way he smile after he says that never fails to make me smile as well

[@gopher3737]

That portrait seemed pretty accurate. Time passes whether you like it or not, and it's not always pretty.

[@neroresurrected]

Well said

[@CatroiOz]

Then it is worthless as a painting. Just grab a camera and take a picture if you want raw reality.

[@borderlineiq]

That wasn't the point. The painter had gone out of his way to depict the man in a shabby manner, showing his vest unbuttoned and the man in a slouch. It's not how anyone being "honored" is ever depicted in a memorial. It was indeed an indirect attack on Churchill.

[@MegaSilverBlood]

Came here straight after watching The Crown, and im surprised to find out that his wife was the one who had it destroyed, they went a different direction in the series Edit: Id like to add that im not an expert un art by any means so i wouldnt know how much of a masterpiece this is, in my eyes is not, but it certainly is an honest and powerful portrait

[@aktchungrabanio6467]

Dude, for the love of all things holy, do NOT think you are not able to judge art just because you are not a snob. Art should be universal. If it doesn't strike you emotionally, it's NOT art. Period.

[@Goldstone93]

Age is cruel! If you see decay it’s because there is decay. I can’t be blamed for what *is*.

[@MzNAZIBOMBER]

Churchill didn't have it destroyed. His wife did.

[@Roddy556]

His wife's name is also Churchill.

[@jrb1802uk]

@@Roddy556 🤣

[@hkleider]

I'm having a Mandela Effect (which I don't normally believe in) moment. I remember reading that the portrait was destroyed before any copies could be made, and the one we see in The Crown or online is a recreation. Yet you can see it on this video, and the Wikipedia article shows it. Weird.

[@Veckoza]

That's still technically not wrong. It could have been destroyed before copies could be made, but since film exists of the image, it could easily be recreated after the original is destroyed.

[@zainwadood]

Came here from Netflix series Crown & am glad they used the same reaction in series!! Learning alot abiut hustory from this series❤

[@g.v.v3866]

The fact that she, Lady Churchill, and not him destroyed it, makes the whole story even better!

[@gustavoritter7321]

She tought it was a blight on his legacy and image, so as soon as she had the chance, she burned it

[@Heath75032]

Hmm. Winston handled it well. .

[@oldmanandthesea7039]

This shows the dilemma a portrait artist has to face when doing a commissioned work for a historical figure like Mr. Churchill. No matter how honest the artist is, his perception of the sitter and the sitter’s self perception could be totally different. Here choosing the right kind of artist to do the portrait is important. Mr. Churchill picked the “wrong” one. What a pity!

[@zthetha]

Sutherland, along with Moore, was one of the two most significant modern artists and was certainly a serious and gifted painter/designer. With hindsight it was a mistake to commission such a perceptive, truthful artist to paint such a devious, blinkered turncoat as Churchill. What Sutherland portrayed affectionly was the sitter before him - an old, sick yet still feebly defiant warhorse. Winston hated the reality of his old age and would no doubt have liked to see himself as a young Marlborough.

[@alex630710]

easy argument . the painter couldn t paint a proper portrait and that s the bottom line.

[@jandenijmegen5842]

This portrait should have been a gift, a present. Instead it was an insult. Churchill never was a good looking man, but to give him the nose of a pig, a background of poo , cut his feet of and put him high up in a chair like Santa Claus is highly offensive. The only reasonable portrait a could find by Sutherland is Conrad Adenaurs'. He copied that one by ratser from a photograph. Just compare his drawing work with - to name just a few- Rubens, Rembrandt, Velasquez or Duerer and you see that he his 3rd class. He needs a matrix or raster to copy his photo's to a painting. No big talent, just a lot of dark colours and ugliness.

[@stephenreeds3672]

He captured Churchill's arrogant stubbornness. If it hadn't been for WWII he would have disappeared.

[@graybonesau]

@@alex630710 LOL

[@ryanwhite7398]

it thought the picture was fascinating and should never have been destroyed by churchills wife though i can understand why churchill found it disrepstcful. the wuote from the crown episode where this took place, "age is cruel", really is powerful and will stay with me forever

[@Graham-gt4gr]

I think Churchill wanted a more romantic painting. Like Napoleon crossing the alps. Modern art is ugly anyway, people who think it signals something deeper are generally idiotic.

[@ItaliaVin]

You want a picture of yourself made to make you look like a monster, in Churchill's words, for posterity? Why should that artist be allowed to do that to a great man?

[@noble_experiment]

I guess if it were anyone else, I would’ve argued he should’ve accepted it and saw the beauty in it. But, like in The Crown episode, it’s a painting that represents the government that people trusted. It should’ve embodied that. Although the painting paints him in a more humane way, I believe him not accepting it does show deeper layers the painting can’t convey,

[@wallysmart2432]

@@Graham-gt4gr LMFAO CHURCHILL WITH ABS AND FLYING INTO THE SUNSET, YEA IT HAS EVEN DEEPER MEANING.

[@ItaliaVin]

When an artist us commissioned to do a portrait of a great man who will go down in posterity, the artist is carefully chosen to do the best work to honor the man. I think the artist may have been chosen to get Churchill to retire by the unflattering portrayal of him. Ultimately it worked. It was wrong of his peers to do that. They also wanted to take over his position for some time.

[@gingashields]

Worth watching Schama's documentary on this, and the quite plausible theory that the depiction was designed to liken Churchill to Britain, as the embodiment of the nation (bloodied but unbowed) - a great compliment

[@janellasdailiesxoxo2717]

In "The Crown" after Churchill saw the portrait, he was angry at Sutherland.

[@aktchungrabanio6467]

Which is a lie.

[@drinkwater319]

Churchill was probably so curmudgeonly that GS painted him like a squashed tortoise just waking up on purpose

[@user-ri8fn6sz7z]

Truly a sad day when that work of art was put to the flame.

[@user-ri8fn6sz7z]

It captured the very essence of the man who, with words alone, saved Great Britain. Sadly, the man himself did not recognize the genius that the artist captured on canvas.

[@jimbarrofficial]

Many considered this a lost masterpiece. Not sure how accurate the depiction in The Crown was about Churchill's reaction and his interaction with Sutherland, but either way, a very interesting story.

[@jrb1802uk]

I wonder how Graham Sutherland must of felt when he heard his work had gone into a fire

[@hera_m]

Here after Charles iii first painting

[@GravityBoy72]

It's a great picture. Should never have been destroyed. Churchill didn't like reality.

[@ClasherQueen]

What the heck was with the nose in the portrait???

[@MadKingOfMadaya]

*_He looks like a goddamned Vogon and it's 100% accurate._*

[@picassojones5712]

The portrait was brilliant; miracle of honesty, a travesty it was destroyed - 🎭

[@sangimizo6804]

0:51 he was so cute.

[@restinpeacekobe987]

He caused the death of millions of bengalis and blamed them for it, was quoted in saying "they breed like rabbits" as his justification for not sending aid. Nice to see you look up to this man, says alot about your character.

[@ashandtheink]

meanwhile your username honors a man who was accused of r*pe. judge not lest ye be judged.

[@Kylesaystuff]

@@restinpeacekobe987 As Chinese, there are many reasons why it cost the starvation in British Bengal, and I'm shocked that most people blame Churchill for that. Since we fight with the British around India back then, the starvation event was first cause by the Singapore attack by the Japanese that eliminate most British best troops in Asia. Soon later, Japan invaded Myanmar and control all the food sources, which are 30% of the food resource for the British empire back then. So British have to move all of their food resources to Ceylon. Well, yes, that causes minor starvation first since there's no food, but later on, Japan didn't allow the people from those areas to trade with the allies that made the situation even worse. Later in the Oct a tropical cyclone appears in Bengalis that ruined 40% of the Ricefield, in the end, all of these cause the starvation. And some people think it is Churchill's fault because some 1993 newspaper that was controlled by the left-wing at that time wrote it and people just talk about that as if it was a fact. Not complain about the actual enemy which is Japan

[@restinpeacekobe987]

@@ashandtheink key word accused and found not guilty so what's your point? Its innocent until proven guilty where I'm from.

[@whippedfornct3179]

@@restinpeacekobe987 exactly, and people blindly supports that murderer

[@Blueboy0316]

Horrible, designed to embarrass and humiliate an accomplished man.

[@pacajalbert9018]

Hitler did not even want to see the Church as understanble blame

[@pianobanter]

Churchill really wanted a portrait of himself adorned in robes and looking regal but was advised that, since the painting is funded by both houses of Westminster, a suit would be more appropriate. The work is indeed remarkable and incredibly honest, he painted the man behind the legend but still retaining a strength. It's magnificent. Not for the first time Winston had portraits of himself destroyed, he wanted his remembrance to be picture-perfect, with the sort of water-coloured copycat impressionism that characterised his own work. Well, this was the 1950s, a new era, the wind of change... and Sutherland was another artist entirely. What they did was sheer vandalism. An act of utter disgrace.

[@72mespo]

And what "they did" was utterly necesssary. Sutherland was a hack as history has shown and his insulting portrait of the greatest Englishman of his time was a bad slur on Churchill and history. Good riddance to modern trash art.

[@IrishCarney]

If he wanted to be regal he should have accepted the Queen's offer of the Dukedom of London. Instead he turned that down on the ridiculous grounds that he needed to preserve his son Randolph's political career in the House of Commons. But Randolph was a widely despised boor, with only the slimmest prospect of winning a seat in the House let alone the premiership, while lolling about in the House of Lords would have suited him well.

[@IrishCarney]

If he wanted to be regal he should have accepted the Queen's offer of the Dukedom of London. Instead he turned that down on the ridiculous grounds that he needed to preserve his son Randolph's political career in the House of Commons. But Randolph was a widely despised boor, with only the slimmest prospect of winning a seat in the House let alone the premiership, while lolling about in the House of Lords would have suited him well.

[@troychriscarretas2657]

I don’t get it nothing wrong with it

[@qwerttzizzi]

Why is "modern art" an insult?

[@knowledgeseeker4614]

There is nothing positive about that term. I think people associate it with not having the standards of the classic era.

[@nqh4393]

Some squiggly lines on a blank canvas that can take just hours to create, accompanied with the lie “no one will ever understand the meaning of this masterpiece”, got sold for tens of millions more than classical masterpieces that can take a lifetime to make.

[@crixxxxxxxxx]

@@nqh4393 If your idea of art is limited to the time it take to create. The art world doesn't impose such narrow-minded restrictions on its estimation of the value of art.

[@crixxxxxxxxx]

It's an insult in the minds of people who don't understand and aren't educated in modern and contemporary art nor do they ever make any attempt to understand it.

[@lesliebrown5721]

That portrait could have been done and still made him look like the man he was at eighty. If it was done right it would not look this terrible. I know when Winston Churchill was 80 years old he wasn't a handsome man anymore. However he was a hell of a site better looking than that portrait. My grandfather was an artist and he did a few self portraits in his later years and they look exactly like him, but they don't make him look like an old, decrepit fool. He looks dignified the way he did look dignified every day. Dressing nice was always incredibly important to him, he always made sure his hair was combed. When he went out, he had a hat on, an actual nice hat not like a baseball hat. Just like Winston Churchill was always dressed to the T and compose himself with dignity and pride. Like Churchill said to the artist, this painting doesn't just represent me. It represents the office and the dignity of that office that I hold. That portrait did not do anyone or any office any dignity. If I didn't know better I would say this was meant to be a mean spirited joke. This is the man who led England through World War 2. I am a proud American, a little ashamed at the moment because our president is completely incompetent due to his age. However my point is that I would be incredibly upset if there was a portrait like that painted of FDR. I am incredibly proud to be related to Theodore Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt and if they ever did a portrait It was as terrible as Winston Churchill's of any of those very important people in American history I would be incredibly upset. There are beautiful portraits of all of the Roosevelt's I just mentioned and thank goodness their portraits we're done well.

[@nickfanzo]

that portrait was great. what an ego

[@EricNorcross]

Glad we have artists rights now. It's illegal to destroy art, even art you commission. These people who mocked it were ignorant and wrong and Churchill's wife was criminal in her act.

[@ItaliaVin]

Except if it's a picture of you being maligned and disrespected I bet.

[@immortalfrom90]

Disgusting portrait of a great man. Clementine did everything right, that portrait must be destroyed

[@giliarmson7293]

Says you an art critic ?

[@aktchungrabanio6467]

@@giliarmson7293 Shut up baby.

[@oingoboingo8849]

It was a hideous portrait which was not only disliked by Churchill and his wife, but disliked by all of their children, Sarah, Mary and Randolph Jr. Good for widow Mary and son Randolph Jr to destroy the portrait. The color versions with close up detail can easily be found online. Francis Bacon painted a gruesome portrait of Queen Elizabeth and about two years ago a gruesome portrait of Kate Middleton was painted that aged her 20 years and gave her jowls, flabby cheeks and haggard crows feet at her eyes. So what is wrong with destroying a hideous portrait? I am pretty sure the ugly portrait of Kate Middleton painted two years ago was never to be displayed again and either destroyed or hidden away in an obscure place to rot and be covered with cobwebs.

[@MzNAZIBOMBER]

Perhaps you are thinking of the Lucian Freud portrait of Queen Elizabeth? I've never seen a Bacon painting of Queen Elizabeth

[@indrekpringi4560]

He was mere;y doing portraits like that of Dorian Grey.... Things like you cannot face reality. To you the uunvarnished Truth is hideous

[@glennhubbard5008]

I don't blame her. It's terrible.

[@ou8126]

Horrible portrait!

[@moll5086]

Good what a horrible portrait it looked like he was sitting on the loo

[@hectoralejandrovargassalaz8890]

Do never ever let wives take control. Shame.

[@claubaznest]

Awful portrait

[@kadiabareld]

No

[@crixxxxxxxxx]

It was a portrait of a fat old man. Churchill was a fat old man.

[@legauloiscouillu8122]

This portrait was terrible. I'm glad he destroyed it.