英语翻译When sir Winston Churchill,the great British Prime Minister,reached his eightieth birthday in November,1954,he was presented with his portrait (肖像) by a well-known modern artist,Graham Sutherland.The painting had been ordered and paid

英语翻译When sir Winston Churchill,the great British Prime Minister,reached his eightieth birthday in November,1954,he was presented with his portrait (肖像) by a well-known modern artist,Graham Sutherland.The painting had been ordered and paid
英语翻译
When sir Winston Churchill,the great British Prime Minister,reached his eightieth birthday in November,1954,he was presented with his portrait (肖像) by a well-known modern artist,Graham Sutherland.The painting had been ordered and paid for by the members of Parliament (国会) .who wanted to honor the Grand Old Man of World War II.
Sir Winston and lady Churchill were deeply moved by this mark of respect.Neither of them,of course,allowed the donors (捐赠人)to see how much they both disliked the portrait.“It makes me look stupid-which I am not!” said Churchill in private.Publicly.He only remarked that it was “a fine example of modern art”.His friends smiled; it was well known that Sir Winston didn’t care for modern art.
Churchill was so unhappy about the portrait that finally his wife had it destroyed.Churchill died at ninety in January,1965.Lady Churchill followed him in 1977.Shortly after her death,the public learned what had happened to Sutherland’s painting,and heated argument broke out.The painter was understandably sad.The artistic community,shocked and angry,claimed (声称) that the destruction(破坏) of the picture had been a crime.Historians said that they regretted the disappearance of a historical document(资格).All agreed that the Churchills didn’t have the right to do what they had done.
Well did they?A good part of the public felt that the subject(and owner)of a portrait had the right to get rid of it if it made him so unhappy.The question,however,has been raised many times before:who has the right to a work of art the sitter,the owner,the donor,or the artist who painted it?And when the painting is the portrait of a historical figure,should the right of posterity(后裔) be considered,as the historians claimed?
Another question comes to mind:who is qualified(有资格的) to judge a portrait?Graham Sutherland had told Sir Winston that he would paint him “as he saw him”,Churchill never had a chance to see the work in progress since the painter refused to show it to him.He found out only when he received his present that Sutherland had seen him as a heavy,sick,tired old man.
Since he hated old age,he was naturally hurt.But was the portrait a good one ,as many(including the painter) said?Or was it bad as others(and the sitter)thought?Who is to judged?It is well known that we never see ourselves as others see us; but do we see ourselves better than they do?
None of these questions have been answered yet to everybody’s satisfaction.

英语翻译When sir Winston Churchill,the great British Prime Minister,reached his eightieth birthday in November,1954,he was presented with his portrait (肖像) by a well-known modern artist,Graham Sutherland.The painting had been ordered and paid
当1954年11月份,英国首相丘吉尔迎来他80大寿之际,收到了著名的现代艺术家葛拉汉.萨瑟兰赠予的一幅肖像.肖像由国会为他预定并付款,用以表彰他对二战所做的卓越贡献.
丘吉尔夫妇深为这份热情所感动,因而他们决不允许赠画人看出来他们实际上是多么地不喜欢这幅肖像.“我在画里显得蠢极了——简直一点不像我!” 丘吉尔私下曾说.在公众场合.他却把肖像评价为“现代艺术的杰作”.这时只有他的朋友才会会心一笑：他们心知肚明丘吉尔压根就不欣赏现代艺术.
可是丘吉尔对这幅肖像如此耿耿于怀,他夫人终究还是将画毁掉了.丘吉尔于1965年1月,以90高龄逝世.1977年,夫人也随他而去.他们去世不久,公众就知道了他们对肖像的处置结果,热烈的争论爆发了.可想而知作者是多么地沮丧.恼羞成怒的艺术界声称,破坏画作属于犯罪行为.历史学家则对这份珍贵史料的永久灭失感到遗憾.所有人一致认为,丘吉尔并没有权利毁坏画作.
他们做得对吗?相当部分的公众认为如果肖像令人不快,则所有人有权任意处置画作.历史上这种问题已被提起多次:艺术品的权利人是谁?被画人,所有权人,捐赠人,还是作画者?当画作是历史人物的肖像时,应由历史学家所言,由人物后代享有权利么?
另一问题也值得关注:谁有资格来决定肖像怎么画?葛拉汉.萨瑟兰告诉丘吉尔：我将“如我所见”为你作画,并拒绝向展示未完的作品,丘吉尔在创作全程没机会看作品一眼.作品完成后,他才发觉自己被葛拉汉.萨瑟兰化成了一个面目阴沉的,显露病态的疲倦老头.
不喜年老的丘吉尔自然深受伤害.但奇怪的是,很多欣赏过的（包括作者）却说肖像是杰作.它有被画人想的那么糟糕吗?谁来裁判?众所周知,不识庐山真面目,只缘身在此山中.人到底能比他人更了解自身么?
以上问题,至今仍无所有人满意的答案.