The Controversial Demise of Prince Philip’s Faceless Statue: A Tale of Art, Dispute, and Urban Planning
The Unveiling and Immediate Backlash
Standing outside a Cambridge office block, a 4-metre bronze statue depicting the late Queen Elizabeth II’s husband, Prince Philip, in academic robes but with an abstract face resembling a twisted owl mask, has sparked controversy since its erection. Dubbed The Don, the £150,000 artwork was intended to honor Prince Philip’s 35-year tenure as chancellor of Cambridge University. However, its reception was far from warm, with critics savaging the piece as “detritus masquerading as public art.” Despite the hefty price tag, the identity of the artist behind this faceless sculpture remains a mystery, as no artist has publicly claimed its creation. Initially attributed to Uruguayan sculptor Pablo Atchugarry, he vehemently denied any involvement, labeling the use of his name as “an abuse.”
Planning Permission Woes and Legal Battles
Cambridge city council’s planning department had previously rejected a proposal for the statue’s placement, yet it was erected without the necessary permissions, leading to a protracted dispute. An enforcement notice was issued by the Greater Cambridge shared planning service on March 5, stating that the statue had been erected within the last four years without planning permission and had a “harmful material impact” on the visual appeal of the area. The notice demanded the statue’s removal within four months of April 11, unless an appeal was lodged. This legal tussle underscores the challenges of managing public art installations, urban aesthetics, and the importance of adhering to local planning laws.
Public and Official Reactions
The statue’s presence has been a point of contention not only among the general public but also within the local government. Katie Thornburrow, executive councillor for planning, building control, and infrastructure, expressed her eagerness to see the statue removed, criticizing the developers for bypassing regulations and imposing financial and administrative burdens on the council. In contrast, Bill Gredley, chair of the Unex Group which commissioned the statue, once defended it as a “spectacular piece of art.” This divide highlights the subjective nature of art and its reception, as well as the tensions between private developers and public authorities.
The Future of Public Art and Urban Planning in Cambridge
As the statue faces its imminent removal, questions arise about the future of public art and urban planning in Cambridge. The incident with The Don statue serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of collaboration between artists, developers, and city officials in enhancing urban spaces with public art that respects both aesthetic sensibilities and legal requirements. Moving forward, how will Cambridge balance the desire for cultural expression with the need for regulatory compliance? And what lessons can other cities learn from this episode about managing public art installations?