Winston Churchill- Paintings

 A Critical Review

What is adequacy? Is it just having no standard at all? For someone who spent as much time painting as Winston Churchill did you would expect to find at least one work in his vast catalog to be an absolute stunner. But no. They are all just adequate. Why is that? Jump down a rabbit hole into the oeuvres of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco and you’ll find an entirely different story. His works are dynamic, and his craftsmanship is superb. So, what’s up with that? Why would one of the great western leaders and military strategists of the 20th century continue to produce volumes of work with no gains or increase in aptitude while the other, a known psychopathic murderous tyrant lays down heavy skills and clever compositions that are quite beautiful even by today’s standards? Well, Churchill only started painting when he was 40 years old and had already by then become a notorious drunk. He surrounded himself with famous English artists of the day such as William Nicholson and Paul Maze, who were in my honest opinion only a step up above adequate themselves. His passion for the craft was undeniable and I’m sure that after years of waring and politicking, painting became a therapeutic and cathartic outlet for an otherwise very stressed-out life. But no progress in his efforts. No creative growth or maturation. Such is often the case with celebrities and all the yes men that helicopter in and out, levying praise and accolades on the undeserving. I can only imagine that no one ever had the balls to ask Churchill why his work was so boring, or God forbid, try to teach him anything he didn’t already know. I assume that would have been the last we would have ever seen of that yes man. I never knew Winston Churchill; I believe he died long before I was born but I’ve seen videos of him on YouTube and I’ve read my history books. From what I can tell the man was a bit of a narcissist and egomaniac. Charming none the less, no one could tell Churchill what to do and as it was with his politics so it must have been with his painting practice. Leave the man alone to his delusions of grandeur. Let him wallow in that old time British aristocratic snobbery. Let the man to his one-hundredth painting of a shrubbery or an unpeopled landscape with a little building in the background. You know, the kind of painting you see in old folks’ homes and hospital waiting rooms or decorating the back wall of an antique shop in Connecticut. I don’t want to come off as if I’m just dumping on Winston. The man is entitled to his hobby. Just don’t tell me it’s great art because it’s not. Don’t try to sell me the idea that because he was a great orator and champion of democracy that he was an inherently gifted artist. Don’t bamboozle me into thinking that celebrities of any kind should be able to leverage their fame into successful and lucrative art careers simply and if only to perpetuate their cults of personality. So, to sum up, across the board Winston Churchill was a fascinating person. He was an adequate painter and by no means of reason other than his celebrity brand, his painting, 'Tower of the Koutoubia Mosque', a gift to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1943 was sold at Christie’s Auction House in 2001 by celebrity Angelina Jolie to an unknown buyer for a staggering eleven and a half million dollars. To put everything in perspective, Francisco Franco’s painting went to auction in 2006 with an opening bid of only six thousand dollars. Democracy wins!