When former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the great British Prime Minister, celebrated his 8th birthday in November 1954, he received a portrait of him as a gift, which was made by a famous contemporary painter Graham Thran. The painting was ordered and paid for by members of Congress in praise of this World War II veteran.

Mr. Winston and Mrs. Churchill were deeply moved by this sign of respect. Of course, none of them will show the donors how much they don't like this portrait. "It makes me look stupid-I'm not like that." Churchill said privately. On public occasions, he will comment that this painting is "a good example of modern art", and all his friends laugh. It is well known that Mr. Winston doesn't care about modern art.

This portrait made Churchill very unhappy, and finally Mrs. Churchill ruined the painting. Churchill died in January 1965 at the age of 9, and Mrs. Churchill died in 1977. Shortly after her death, the public learned what happened to Ceylon's painting and a heated debate broke out. Painters are understandably sad. The art society expressed shock and indignation, and claimed that the destruction of the painting was a criminal act. Historians expressed regret over the disappearance of historical documents. Everyone said Churchill had no right to do that.

are they reasonable? A large part of the public feels that if a portrait makes its supporters so unhappy, they have the right to go out. However, this question has to be mentioned many times: Who has the right to this work, the painter, the owner, the donor, or the author of the painting? And when the painting is a portrait of a historical figure, whether to respect the rights of descendants as claimed by historians.

There is another question to consider. Who is qualified to judge a portrait? Graham Cerlan once told Winston Churchill that he would paint "when he sees him". Churchill never had a chance to see the work he was painting because the author refused to show it to him. When he received the gift, he found that Cerlan regarded him as a fat, sick and tired old man.

Because he hates being old, he is naturally hurt, but is this portrait well painted? As most people (including the author) say, or is it very bad as others (and the painted) think? Who will judge? As we all know, our views on ourselves are different from those of others. But do we think better of ourselves than they do?

none of these questions can satisfy everyone.

I'll translate, * * * and study together.