National Portrait Gallery removes artwork after row over Churchill’s legacy
National Portrait Gallery removes artwork after – The National Portrait Gallery (NPG) in London has taken down a video installation by British artist Helen Cammock following a debate over its portrayal of Winston Churchill’s involvement in the 1943 Bengal famine. The piece, titled “Persistence,” was part of a larger project featuring nine artists who reinterpreted traditional portraiture through a critical lens. Initially displayed at the London museum in September 2025, the artwork was slated for exhibition until August 2026. Its removal sparked discussions about the balance between artistic freedom and historical accuracy, as well as the gallery’s role in shaping public perception of prominent figures.
A provocative comparison to historical figures
Cammock’s 40-minute film, which she narrates, draws parallels between 17th-century English military leader Oliver Cromwell and 20th-century British prime minister Winston Churchill. In the piece, she highlights how Cromwell’s campaigns in Ireland led to mass starvation, framing Churchill’s policies in colonial India similarly. The artist argues that both leaders imposed hunger on civilian populations through deliberate economic decisions. “Starving people, en masse, a little like the willful starvation of the Indian population by Winston Churchill,” she says, blending historical events to critique power structures.
The controversy gained momentum when conservative newspaper The Telegraph criticized the comparison, calling it “incorrect” in a June 14 article. The publication’s editorial focused on the single mention of Churchill in the video, arguing that the portrayal exaggerated his responsibility for the famine. Critics pointed to the 3 million lives lost during the disaster, emphasizing its complex causes, including natural disasters and wartime logistics. Yet, Cammock’s work aimed to challenge the National Portrait Gallery’s reputation as a space that primarily celebrates well-known individuals without questioning their legacies.
Historians and political figures weigh in
The debate escalated further when historian Andrew Roberts, a Churchill biographer, led a campaign for the artwork’s removal. His open letter to the NPG, signed by 50 current and former members of the House of Lords, including Churchill’s grandson Nicholas Soames, accused Cammock of presenting an “ideologically motivated rant.” The letter asserted that the famine was not solely Churchill’s fault, attributing its severity to a typhoon and the British administration’s efforts to address the crisis. “The accusation that [the famine] was deliberately visited upon Bengalis by Churchill is foul and vile. It is also historically ludicrous,” Roberts wrote.
Despite these claims, the role of Churchill in the famine remains contested. While Roberts highlights measures taken by the administration to send grain, others argue that his policies, such as prioritizing military needs over civilian relief, worsened the situation. This divergence in interpretations was underscored by Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen, who in 1981 posited that the famine was driven by rising prices and economic inequality, exacerbated by British wartime expenditures. Sen’s analysis added nuance to the debate, showing that the event was not merely a result of deliberate starvation but a multifaceted crisis.
Supporting artistic expression and facing pressure
The National Portrait Gallery initially defended Cammock’s work, stating it reflected “her personal reflections on historical and current events.” The institution emphasized its commitment to artistic freedom, even if it did not endorse every viewpoint presented. “We support freedom of artistic expression while not necessarily endorsing the opinions expressed by any of the artists shown at the gallery,” a statement from the NPG read. However, the pressure to align with traditional narratives eventually led to the removal of the piece.
Cammock, a Turner Prize-winning artist, expressed frustration with the decision, noting the broader implications for creative expression. “There is an incredible pressure on artists and arts institutions to bend to external pressure; to be benign at best and silent at worst,” she said in a statement. The artist framed the removal as a concession to ideological conformity, arguing that questioning historical figures is essential to a vibrant society. “To question, challenge and explore ideas and histories is vital to a healthy society and art is intrinsic to this,” she added, highlighting the importance of critical discourse in art.
The controversy has reignited debates about how history is taught and remembered. While some view Cammock’s work as a bold critique of colonial legacies, others see it as an overreach that undermines the gallery’s mission. The NPG’s response, which acknowledged the views of those offended by the film, underscores the tension between artistic innovation and institutional accountability. As the discussion continues, the incident serves as a reminder of how art can provoke dialogue about power, memory, and the legacy of historical leaders.
The enduring impact of historical narratives
Historical narratives often shape public understanding of figures like Churchill, whose leadership during World War II is widely celebrated. Yet, the Bengal famine—a period of immense suffering in India—has long been a point of contention. While the NPG defended its decision to remove the artwork, the incident has prompted renewed scrutiny of how institutions handle conflicting interpretations of history. For Cammock, the act of removing “Persistence” symbolizes a struggle between artistic integrity and the expectations of a mainstream audience. “Art should not be a tool for political correctness,” she stated, stressing the need for boldness in exploring difficult truths.
As the debate unfolds, it reflects broader questions about the responsibility of artists to challenge dominant histories. The National Portrait Gallery’s choice to take down the video installation has left some wondering whether it prioritizes consensus over controversy. In contrast, Cammock’s work stands as a testament to the power of art to provoke thought and reshape collective memory. Whether the removal was a necessary step or a compromise, the event has brought attention to the complexities of interpreting historical events through a modern lens. The discussion is far from over, with historians, artists, and the public continuing to grapple with the legacy of Winston Churchill and the role of institutions in defining it.
