Facebook
Britain's News Portal
Around The Clock
BREAKING
Loading latest headlines…

Artist Defends Churchill Famine Claims in National Portrait Gallery Video

Turner Prize winner Helen Cammock has defended her video artwork at the National Portrait Gallery, which controversially links Winston Churchill to the Bengal famine. The artist stated her work aims to foster dialogue about figures in the gallery's collection, following accusations of historical inaccuracy.

  • Helen Cammock's video, 'Persistence', suggests Winston Churchill was responsible for the 'wilful starvation' of the Indian population during the 1943 Bengal famine.
  • Lord Roberts of Belgravia and over 50 peers criticised the claim as a 'barefaced lie' in a letter to the National Portrait Gallery.
  • Cammock states her work is a 'creative work' intended to explore ideas and generate dialogue about historical figures and narratives.
  • Academics fiercely debate Churchill's role in the famine, with some blaming his policies and others citing natural disasters and wartime conditions.
  • The National Portrait Gallery has acknowledged receipt of the complaint and stated the artwork, commissioned in 2023, will be on display until August.

Turner Prize-winning artist Helen Cammock has issued a defence of her video installation at the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) following accusations of historical inaccuracy regarding Winston Churchill. Her 40-minute moving image piece, titled 'Persistence', has ignited a debate over the former Prime Minister's culpability in the devastating Bengal famine of 1943, which led to an estimated three million deaths in eastern India.

In the artwork, Cammock, who also narrates, draws a parallel between Oliver Cromwell's actions in Ireland and Churchill, stating Cromwell 'starved people, en masse, a little like the wilful starvation of the Indian population by Winston Churchill'. This assertion prompted a strong rebuke from Lord Roberts of Belgravia, a prominent Churchill biographer, who, alongside over 50 peers, sent a letter to the NPG directors describing the claim as a 'barefaced lie' and labelling the film an 'ideologically motivated rant'.

Responding to the criticism, Cammock released a statement to The Guardian, clarifying the intent behind her work. She explained: 'The work thinks about the role of the portrait historically and its relevance today. It considers who is honoured and valorised and who is not; whose stories are told and whose are not… and how histories are created and then maintained.' She further emphasised that the piece 'is not a documentary, it is a creative work that explores ideas and thoughts in response to the National Portrait Gallery, its collection and its archives.'

The historical debate surrounding Churchill's role in the Bengal famine is complex and highly contested among academics. While many scholars argue that Churchill's wartime policies exacerbated the famine, some defenders maintain that any adverse effects were unintentional and that the wartime leader was not fully aware of the severity of the situation on the ground. They often attribute the catastrophe to drought conditions and local mismanagement, suggesting Churchill took measures to alleviate food shortages once the scale of the crisis became apparent. Conversely, other academics contend that Churchill disregarded warnings about impending rice shortages, which were worsened by the diversion of food resources across the British Empire during the conflict, rather than being retained for India.

The controversy surrounding Cammock's work is not an isolated incident, with other Black British artists recently facing criticism from certain segments of the media. Anonymous artists have suggested the current row is part of a broader 'politically motivated battle' aimed at silencing artists and institutions. The National Portrait Gallery has confirmed receipt of Lord Roberts' letter and stated it will respond, but noted no visitor complaints regarding the artwork, which was commissioned in 2023 and is scheduled to remain on display until August.

Cammock underscored the importance of public institutions like the NPG engaging in ongoing dialogue about their collections and historical relevance, stating: 'The National Portrait Gallery is an incredibly important public resource and as such it’s vital that it continues to engage in dialogue about the works that it is custodian of, and their relevance historically.'

Why this matters: This debate highlights ongoing tensions over how historical figures are presented and interpreted in cultural institutions, particularly concerning controversial aspects of British imperial history. It raises questions about artistic freedom versus historical accuracy in public spaces.

What this means for you: What this means for you: This ongoing discussion affects how public institutions, funded by taxpayers, present historical narratives. It could influence future curatorial decisions and the types of exhibitions you see, shaping the public understanding of significant historical events and figures.

Related Articles

Get the news that matters.

Join thousands of readers getting the best of British news straight to their inbox.