Art: Assorted Tigers

British Publisher Lord Beaverbrook has traveled far and fast since he left his boyhood home in New Brunswick, Canada, half a century ago. But he has never forgotten the folks at home, has showered them with such gifts as a park, a skating rink, a set of chimes and a 12,000-volume library. Last week Canadians got their first look at the Beaver’s latest gift: 80 paintings from the collection that will be turned over to New Brunswick next year, along with a new museum to house it.

Last week’s exhibition was mainly devoted to 200 years of British and Canadian painting, plus a portrait by Fragonard, who, the Beaver explains, “would have been French Canadian if he’d been born on the other side.” But the most intriguing exhibit of the show was a series of oil sketches of Winston Churchill, never before shown to the public, which were done in preparation for Graham Sutherland’s controversial portrait, presented by Parliament to its hero last year (TIME, Dec. 13).

As was the case with the presentation portrait,* Sutherland’s preparatory sketches were apt to please the critics who think painting should be true-to-art (by fulfilling certain “laws” for what makes a good picture) and displease the majority who feel that painting should be true-to-life (in the sense of showing what everyone can see for himself).

Churchill’s first question to the artist was: “Are you going to paint me as a tiger or a cherub?” Had Sutherland tried to catch something of both, he might have got results. Instead he took the easier course of choosing a single dramatic aspect—the tiger. He got nine short sittings in which to bag it. His studies on view last week showed a robed tiger in the Order of the Garter, a cigar-chomping tiger, a tiger weary unto death, and a fat but hungry tiger. Each clearly caught a mood. But by concentrating on the tiger, each missed the complex man.

*Which has been consigned to the cellar by an indignant Churchill.