Churchill, the Artist

 David Coombs. Churchill: His Paintings (1966) After looking through this book for the third or fourth time, I think that Churchill is an underrated artist. Unlike professional art makers, he could indulge his avocation without worrying whether his work would sell, whether it made some kind of currently fashionable statement, or whether he could aspire to becoming an Important Artist. So he experimented with colour and style, and painted what he liked to look at or thought was worth memorialising.
     He had a good eye for colour, preferring a palette of subdued complementary colours lit up a few bright spots. He liked architectural shapes, and tended to abstract natural objects into blocks and streaks of colour. His most successful paintings are impressionist. Better:   The paintings I like best are impressionist emulations of Turner and Monet.
     The book is a curiosity. A catalogue raisonne, with almost complete data on dates, owners, and whereabouts, and an introduction by David Coombs. Poor man, he knows he’s dealing with the leisure time output of a Great Man, and so had a to strike a nice balance between respect for a serious amateur’s work and professional art criticism (he was at the time writing for The Connoisseur). Churchill’s work is better than amateurish, but most of it lacks the sense of the professional’s idiosyncratic unique vision.
     I like Churchill’s pictures. The printing is better than average for its time. **½