4 ms·

Painting as a Pastime by Winston Churchill (1948)

52 points by craigcannon 8y ago

strict9 8y ago
For many of the reasons outlined in this introduction, I've taken up drawing, wood engraving, and origami/papercraft. The repetitive parts (carving lines or folding paper) in particular have an acute soothing psychological effect. Additionally, my sense is that while engaged in these activities parts of the mind normally dormant while working with code all day spring to life. Seems a good antidote to boredom or sadness is painting, drawing, sculpting, gardening, or something else that's a different language: >Since change is an essential element in diversion of all kinds, it is naturally more restful and refreshing to read in a different language from that in which one's ordinary daily work is done.
- lsalvatore 8y ago
  I've sadly come to the conclusion that painting is not a relief from coding for me. Coding is translating data logic to keyboard strokes, and then painting is conceptualizing very different abstract shapes into brush strokes. They are actually so similar in concept that the coding wears out the part of my brain that would be really helpful for painting. I've spent many days split between coding and painting and I've yet to come out the experience feeling extremely worn out at one of the two. Of course I'm talking about representational painting, not just making random marks. I've had many nights of making random marks with brush strokes and all I create is a mess. Perhaps I need to try to completely lose the analytical part of my brain during painting.
  - obelix_ 8y ago
    The subject you pick and the reaction of the people around you to your initial attempts makes a big difference here. People underestimate this. So pick subjects that interest you or are sure to tickle/provoke/excite the people you intend to show the work too.
mark212 8y ago
George W. Bush was so inspired by this essay that he did the same thing after leaving office. https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/politics/george-w-bush-paintings/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/politics/george-w-bush-painti...
- narag 8y ago
  Drawing is not great, but color is nice and faces are expressive. I wouldn't buy the paintings but they're better than I expected.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  I was wondering if that was so, after reading a couple of paragraphs here.
pnathan 8y ago
There's a book of his paintings available. It's fascinating, a peep into a uncommonly seen side of one of the giants of the 20th C.
mbroncano 8y ago
Reading this, it comes to mind one of the most unknown episodes of Churchill’s life is the Bengal famine of 1943 [1], in which he was personally responsible for the death of at least two million Indian. I guess that painting and writing wasn’t enough of a past time. Gallipoli wasn’t really something to write letters home about, you just need to read something mildly objective to realize the kind of sick person this man was. The point I’m trying to make is, History is written by winners. In most contexts, this man would be nothing more than another early 20th century psychopath. Certainly not a hero, a giant or even a decent human being. Wouldn’t he had been kicked out of 10 Downing St. Europe would have certainly suffered another WW2 aftermath, only to feed his personal and sick bloodlust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  I feel similar about stories about George W Bush's painting hobby. We're still trying to extricate ourselves from the aftermath of the totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, which is responsible for a couple hundred thousand dead there, and likely ultimately led to ISIS and many of the worst parts of the Syrian crisis.
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    If my memory of the time is correct, Bush had a weird thing about comparing himself to Churchill.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  This is inaccurate. Churchill if anything was underrated by history. The Gallipoli disaster occurred not because of his plans (which was a quick naval attack up the straits, which the British were on the verge of doing and the Turks later admitted would have taken Constantinople had then done so - probably ending the war much earlier, saving millions in Europe, Russia, and elsewhere). This is a man also largely responsible for the tank (also ending the war, eventually) and probably the main reason Britain did not back down in 1940, saving much of the world from far far worse in Nazi Germany. We can disagree about his methods, but he was probably right in why he was so aggressive after WW2 - he saw the USSR for what it was, as he did many things through his life. Not without flaw or mistake, but to describe him as you have is not very accurate. There's few people who deserve to be considered "great men", but he was one of them. Even if not, he was not the one sided caricature you have put forward. I'd suggest a good, in-depth biography. It's perhaps easier to understand some of him when you read the pleadings of a boy for his parents to see or respond to him, which they ignored while they had time for the king and the rest of British high society. This is a man whom actually fought in battles, didn't shy away from conflict or duty, unlike some in his social class. He was at times a liberal and at times a conservative (and took principled stands for both sides), but at the end of the day, was not a monster and was much better than most. The victors may write history, but sometimes there is a reason they won. To offer a counter-example, consider Churchill's dressing down of the man responsible for the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre in front of Parliament: http://www.indiaofthepast.org/contribute-memories/read-contributions/major-events-pre-1950/365-churchill-on-jallianwala-bagh-massacre-1919 http://www.indiaofthepast.org/contribute-memories/read-contr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre Both Secretary of State for War Winston Churchill and former Prime Minister H. H. Asquith however, openly condemned the attack, Churchill referring to it as "monstrous", while Asquith called it "one of the worst outrages in the whole of our history".[54] Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons debate of 8 July 1920, said, "The crowd was unarmed, except with bludgeons. It was not attacking anybody or anything… When fire had been opened upon it to disperse it, it tried to run away. Pinned up in a narrow place considerably smaller than Trafalgar Square, with hardly any exits, and packed together so that one bullet would drive through three or four bodies, the people ran madly this way and the other. When the fire was directed upon the centre, they ran to the sides. The fire was then directed to the sides. Many threw themselves down on the ground, the fire was then directed down on the ground. This was continued to 8 to 10 minutes, and it stopped only when the ammunition had reached the point of exhaustion."[55] After Churchill's speech in the House of Commons debate, MPs voted 247 to 37 against Dyer and in support of the Government.[56] Cloake reports that despite the official rebuke, many Britons "thought him a hero for saving the rule of British law in India."[57] Dyer was celebrated by the pubic at large both before and after the attack (and after this speech). But if Winston was a such an inhumane monster, why take the side he did? You'll find in many occasions in history, he took principled and considered if not always correct positions. He certainly wasn't a Hilter or even a Bush. For more reading: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Lion-Winston-Churchill-1874-1932/dp/0385313489 https://www.amazon.com/Last-Lion-Winston-Churchill-1874-1932...

52 points by craigcannon 8y ago

For many of the reasons outlined in this introduction, I've taken up drawing, wood engraving, and origami/papercraft. The repetitive parts (carving lines or folding paper) in particular have an acute soothing psychological effect. Additionally, my sense is that while engaged in these activities parts of the mind normally dormant while working with code all day spring to life. Seems a good antidote to boredom or sadness is painting, drawing, sculpting, gardening, or something else that's a different language: >Since change is an essential element in diversion of all kinds, it is naturally more restful and refreshing to read in a different language from that in which one's ordinary daily work is done.

lsalvatore 8y ago
I've sadly come to the conclusion that painting is not a relief from coding for me. Coding is translating data logic to keyboard strokes, and then painting is conceptualizing very different abstract shapes into brush strokes. They are actually so similar in concept that the coding wears out the part of my brain that would be really helpful for painting. I've spent many days split between coding and painting and I've yet to come out the experience feeling extremely worn out at one of the two. Of course I'm talking about representational painting, not just making random marks. I've had many nights of making random marks with brush strokes and all I create is a mess. Perhaps I need to try to completely lose the analytical part of my brain during painting.
- obelix_ 8y ago
  The subject you pick and the reaction of the people around you to your initial attempts makes a big difference here. People underestimate this. So pick subjects that interest you or are sure to tickle/provoke/excite the people you intend to show the work too.

mark212 8y ago

George W. Bush was so inspired by this essay that he did the same thing after leaving office. https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/politics/george-w-bush-paintings/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/politics/george-w-bush-painti...

narag 8y ago
Drawing is not great, but color is nice and faces are expressive. I wouldn't buy the paintings but they're better than I expected.
craftyguy 8y ago
I was wondering if that was so, after reading a couple of paragraphs here.

pnathan 8y ago

There's a book of his paintings available. It's fascinating, a peep into a uncommonly seen side of one of the giants of the 20th C.

mbroncano 8y ago

Reading this, it comes to mind one of the most unknown episodes of Churchill’s life is the Bengal famine of 1943 [1], in which he was personally responsible for the death of at least two million Indian. I guess that painting and writing wasn’t enough of a past time. Gallipoli wasn’t really something to write letters home about, you just need to read something mildly objective to realize the kind of sick person this man was. The point I’m trying to make is, History is written by winners. In most contexts, this man would be nothing more than another early 20th century psychopath. Certainly not a hero, a giant or even a decent human being. Wouldn’t he had been kicked out of 10 Downing St. Europe would have certainly suffered another WW2 aftermath, only to feed his personal and sick bloodlust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

acjohnson55 8y ago
I feel similar about stories about George W Bush's painting hobby. We're still trying to extricate ourselves from the aftermath of the totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, which is responsible for a couple hundred thousand dead there, and likely ultimately led to ISIS and many of the worst parts of the Syrian crisis.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  If my memory of the time is correct, Bush had a weird thing about comparing himself to Churchill.
aaron-lebo 8y ago
This is inaccurate. Churchill if anything was underrated by history. The Gallipoli disaster occurred not because of his plans (which was a quick naval attack up the straits, which the British were on the verge of doing and the Turks later admitted would have taken Constantinople had then done so - probably ending the war much earlier, saving millions in Europe, Russia, and elsewhere). This is a man also largely responsible for the tank (also ending the war, eventually) and probably the main reason Britain did not back down in 1940, saving much of the world from far far worse in Nazi Germany. We can disagree about his methods, but he was probably right in why he was so aggressive after WW2 - he saw the USSR for what it was, as he did many things through his life. Not without flaw or mistake, but to describe him as you have is not very accurate. There's few people who deserve to be considered "great men", but he was one of them. Even if not, he was not the one sided caricature you have put forward. I'd suggest a good, in-depth biography. It's perhaps easier to understand some of him when you read the pleadings of a boy for his parents to see or respond to him, which they ignored while they had time for the king and the rest of British high society. This is a man whom actually fought in battles, didn't shy away from conflict or duty, unlike some in his social class. He was at times a liberal and at times a conservative (and took principled stands for both sides), but at the end of the day, was not a monster and was much better than most. The victors may write history, but sometimes there is a reason they won. To offer a counter-example, consider Churchill's dressing down of the man responsible for the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre in front of Parliament: http://www.indiaofthepast.org/contribute-memories/read-contributions/major-events-pre-1950/365-churchill-on-jallianwala-bagh-massacre-1919 http://www.indiaofthepast.org/contribute-memories/read-contr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre Both Secretary of State for War Winston Churchill and former Prime Minister H. H. Asquith however, openly condemned the attack, Churchill referring to it as "monstrous", while Asquith called it "one of the worst outrages in the whole of our history".[54] Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons debate of 8 July 1920, said, "The crowd was unarmed, except with bludgeons. It was not attacking anybody or anything… When fire had been opened upon it to disperse it, it tried to run away. Pinned up in a narrow place considerably smaller than Trafalgar Square, with hardly any exits, and packed together so that one bullet would drive through three or four bodies, the people ran madly this way and the other. When the fire was directed upon the centre, they ran to the sides. The fire was then directed to the sides. Many threw themselves down on the ground, the fire was then directed down on the ground. This was continued to 8 to 10 minutes, and it stopped only when the ammunition had reached the point of exhaustion."[55] After Churchill's speech in the House of Commons debate, MPs voted 247 to 37 against Dyer and in support of the Government.[56] Cloake reports that despite the official rebuke, many Britons "thought him a hero for saving the rule of British law in India."[57] Dyer was celebrated by the pubic at large both before and after the attack (and after this speech). But if Winston was a such an inhumane monster, why take the side he did? You'll find in many occasions in history, he took principled and considered if not always correct positions. He certainly wasn't a Hilter or even a Bush. For more reading: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Lion-Winston-Churchill-1874-1932/dp/0385313489 https://www.amazon.com/Last-Lion-Winston-Churchill-1874-1932...