Statues are in the news. Controversies are swirling around the slave trader and philanthropist Edward Colston in Bristol, Confederate generals, soldiers and leaders in the United States, and the sculpture in honour of Mary Wollstonecraft in Newington Green in North London. In some cases, the attacks have been physical as well as verbal, and such moves have provoked counter-moves in defence of certain statues or statues of a certain kind. People are paying attention to and reflecting on monuments that they might normally pass by without a glance or thought. Nor has the conversation simply been about the authorised and unauthorised relocation or dismantling of statues: there has also been considerable enthusiasm for erecting new ones. In this paper, I argue that it is healthy to have such debates and important in a functioning democracy. However, before we can consider why some statues and monuments have become so controversial, and how best to resolve the controversies, we first need to understand the many different reasons why statues might be erected in the first place, and why they might continue to be valued and preserved. We also need to consider secondary intentions in their creation, and other social functions they might serve, whether intended or not. We need to reflect on the who, how, where and when of statues before we can understand their defacement or destruction.