Full Breakdown
Controversy Over Helen Cammock’s ‘Persistence’ Leads to Its Removal from London’s National Portrait Gallery
6/25/2026, 2:21:22 AM
Removal of “Persistence” from the National Portrait Gallery
On Monday 22 June 2026, Helen Cammock withdrew her 40-minute video installation “Persistence” from the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) in London. The work had been on view since September 2025 as part of the “Artists First: Contemporary Perspectives on Portraiture” exhibition, scheduled to run until August 2026. The withdrawal followed an open letter signed by more than 50 members of the House of Lords—including historian Lord Andrew Roberts and Sir Nicholas Soames, Churchill’s grandson—calling the piece “historically ludicrous” and “ideologically motivated.”
Historical Context and Significance
The video’s sole reference to Winston Churchill concerns the 1943 Bengal famine, which killed an estimated three million people in eastern India. Historians remain divided: the International Churchill Society and Lord Roberts attribute the crisis to a 1942 typhoon and wartime logistics, whereas scholars such as Madhushree Mukerjee and Amartya Sen argue that British wartime policies—grain export and denial strategies—exacerbated the famine. The dispute underscores how artistic works can revive contested colonial histories.
Official Statements & Criticism
The National Portrait Gallery said it “respects her decision” and added, “Just as we acknowledge the opinions of those who were offended by what was said in the film.” It stressed the work was an artistic piece, not a documentary. Artist Helen Cammock warned of “incredible pressure on artists and arts institutions to bend to external pressure; to be benign at best and silent at worst. I do not accept this pressure.” Historian Lord Andrew Roberts, a Churchill biographer, called the video “an ideologically motivated rant” and the accusation of deliberate starvation “foul and vile.” The Telegraph called the claim “incorrect,” and historian Richard Toye described it as “fair comment.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources disagree on the famine’s primary cause: the International Churchill Society and Lord Roberts emphasize natural disaster and wartime logistics, whereas Mukerjee, Sen and other scholars stress British policy decisions that diverted food and heightened scarcity. No consensus appears in the available material.
Verbatim Quotes
- “There is an incredible pressure on artists and arts institutions to bend to external pressure; to be benign at best and silent at worst.” — Helen Cammock, Artist
- “the Bengal Famine was an unimaginable tragedy and disaster, but the accusation that it was deliberately visited upon the Bengalis by Churchill is foul and vile.” — Lord Andrew Roberts, Historian
- “an ideologically motivated rant” — Lord Andrew Roberts, Open letter
- “We respect her decision,” — National Portrait Gallery, Official statement
What’s Next
Cammock said the work will have “its own life” and may be shown in venues willing to host it. The NPG affirmed its commitment to artistic expression while noting that future commissions will continue to engage with contested historical subjects. Scholarly debate over Churchill’s role in the Bengal famine is expected to persist.
