Helen Cammock Withdraws from National Portrait Gallery: A Controversy Explained
By Darren Smith, Arts Reporter
June 23, 2026
In a striking development that has rippled through London’s art world and reignited passionate debates about history, memory, and artistic freedom, Turner Prize-winning artist Helen Cammock has withdrawn her video installation Persistence from the National Portrait Gallery. The decision came after weeks of mounting criticism from historians, politicians, and public figures over the work’s portrayal of Winston Churchill’s role in the 1943 Bengal famine.
Cammock, who shared the prestigious Turner Prize in 2019, created the 40-minute video as part of the gallery’s Artists First: Contemporary Perspectives on Portraiture exhibition. Commissioned in 2023 and on display since September 2025, the piece used the National Portrait Gallery’s archives, collections, and architecture as a springboard for reflections on presence, absence, erasure, and the enduring legacies of power. Narrated by Cammock herself, Persistence wove together historical references, including Oliver Cromwell’s campaigns in Ireland and critiques of other colonial figures, while drawing parallels to modern issues of justice and inequality.
The controversy centered on a specific narration line in which Cammock referenced “the wilful starvation of the Indian population by Winston Churchill” during the Bengal famine, which claimed an estimated three million lives. She described starvation as a “weapon of war,” echoing interpretations held by some scholars who argue British wartime policies exacerbated the crisis. The statement provoked strong backlash. More than 50 peers, including Churchill’s grandson Sir Nicholas Soames and historian Lord Andrew Roberts, signed a letter denouncing the claim as a “barefaced lie” and labeling the film an “ideologically motivated rant.”
The National Portrait Gallery initially defended the work as artistic expression rather than historical documentary. In earlier statements, the institution emphasized that Cammock’s piece offered personal reflections designed to spark dialogue with the portraits surrounding it—many of which depict figures from Britain’s imperial past. Yet as media scrutiny intensified and pressure grew, the gallery confirmed on Monday that Cammock had requested the removal of Persistence. “Today, Helen Cammock decided to remove her film, Persistence, from display at the National Portrait Gallery,” a spokesperson said. “We respect her decision.”
Cammock responded thoughtfully to the unfolding events. She acknowledged the intense external pressures facing artists and cultural institutions today, noting that the choice to withdraw was not made lightly. In her view, the work was never intended as a definitive historical account but as an invitation for audiences to engage critically with difficult histories. “People should hear it out,” she suggested, underscoring art’s role in questioning narratives that have long been presented as settled.
This episode highlights deeper tensions in contemporary art. Museums and galleries increasingly commission living artists to reinterpret historical collections, aiming to make institutions more relevant to diverse audiences. Yet such interventions often collide with entrenched views on national heroes like Churchill, whose leadership during World War II remains a cornerstone of British identity. The Bengal famine debate itself is academically contested: while some historians point to policy failures, others emphasize wartime constraints, Japanese occupation threats, and natural disasters as primary factors. Cammock’s piece entered this complex terrain through a poetic, non-literal lens typical of her practice, which frequently blends film, text, song, and performance to explore marginalised voices and systemic power.
Helen Cammock has built an acclaimed career examining social and political histories through a multidisciplinary approach. Her work often draws from archival research while foregrounding emotional and personal resonance. Previous projects have addressed civil rights movements, migration, and the legacies of empire. Winning the Turner Prize alongside collaborators in 2019 catapulted her into international prominence, with exhibitions at venues like the Whitechapel Gallery, Irish Museum of Modern Art, and institutions in the United States and Europe. Her commitment to dialogue over dogma has defined her output, even as it invites scrutiny.
The removal of Persistence raises important questions about the boundaries of artistic license in publicly funded spaces. Supporters argue that withdrawing the work sets a dangerous precedent, potentially chilling future critical engagements with history. Critics, conversely, maintain that taxpayer-supported institutions should uphold factual rigor when addressing nationally significant figures. The National Portrait Gallery, which reopened after major renovations with a renewed focus on inclusivity, finds itself navigating these polarities.
As the art world reflects on this moment, Cammock’s withdrawal may ultimately amplify the very conversations her installation sought to provoke. In an era where historical memory is fiercely contested, works like Persistence serve as mirrors—sometimes uncomfortable ones—reflecting societal fractures. Whether through presence or absence, the piece has left an indelible mark on public discourse.
The episode underscores art’s unique power to surface buried narratives and challenge viewers to reconsider what they think they know. For those interested in exploring Helen Cammock’s broader practice or the ongoing evolution of portraiture at the National Portrait Gallery, further engagement awaits. Visit the gallery’s current exhibitions, read Cammock’s previous statements on her process, or dive into scholarly discussions of the Bengal famine to form your own informed perspective. In a world that demands nuance, supporting thoughtful artistic inquiry remains essential. What stories will we choose to persist?
The cover image in this article was AI-generated.
