The controversial sculpture depicting Prince Philip, the late husband of Queen Elizabeth II, has captivated the public’s attention for years.
Shrouded in mystery and diverging opinions, this faceless bronze statue, once described as “possibly the poorest quality work” ever submitted, will be removed.
Prince Philip sculpture
Standing at an imposing 4 meters tall, the sculpture, known as “The Don,” was erected outside a Cambridge office block without proper planning permission.
The purpose of the work was to commemorate Prince Philip’s 35th year as Chancellor of the University of Cambridge.
The sculpture portrayed Philip in academic robes and an abstract face in the form of a “twisted” owl that drew criticism from artists and the public alike.
The controversy and criticism of the sculpture was immediate and scathing.
One renowned art critic dubbed it “detritus masquerading as public art,” encapsulating the widespread disdain for its unconventional design.
Despite its US$190,000 price tag, the artist behind the work remained elusive.
The Uruguayan sculptor Pablo Atchugarry denied any involvement and called the attribution of the sculpture to him “an abuse.”
As the controversy swirled, the Unex Group, believed to be the commissioning entity, found itself in the crosshairs of Cambridge City Council.
In 2014, the council denied planning permission for the sculpture, citing its “harmful material impact” on the area’s appearance and its lack of site-specific relevance.
However, the sculpture remained defiantly in place, prompting the council to issue an enforcement notice in March 2024, demanding its permanent removal within four months unless an appeal was lodged.
Despite the backlash, Bill Gredley, the chair of Unex Group, remained steadfast in his defense of the work, describing it as a “spectacular piece of art” in 2014.
This stance only further fueled the polarizing debate surrounding the sculpture’s artistic merits and its place in the public sphere.
Katie Thornburrow, the executive councilor for planning, building control, and infrastructure, expressed frustration at the developers’ disregard for the rules, stating:
“Nobody, apart from the wealthy property developer who commissioned it, seems to have a good word to say about it.”
As the deadline for its removal looms, the “twisted owl” will find a new home or fade into obscurity.