The piece I am discussing is work of Banksy, arguably the world-renowned street art / graffiti artist. In this work he uses a well-known Native American proverb and alters it to change the meaning – a signature method of the artist. Here he adds two new final lines to the poem that brutally break with the expectation the unsuspecting reader undoubtedly has of the proverb. In this analysis I will discuss the way the artist creates this effect on different layers and what his motivation might be.
First sign that something unusual is going is the context this piece appears: it is sprayed as a stencil print on a wall in the street. This is already the first level on which the artist mocks the general opinion of art and vandalism. The next step is the form he chooses. He uses an old-fashioned font and even uses adornments at the corners, such as found in old books. This makes it look beautiful and awe-inspiring – especially to conservative onlookers, who would commonly condemn it as vandalism. So again Banksy plays with the general expectation of graffiti and art. This combination of old, well-established elements with the quite modern form of graffiti / street art / stencil printing is characteristic for his work. He for instance commonly uses old-fashioned pictures of people for his guerrilla art attacks. This is undoubtedly an effective way to force the viewer to rethink his own ideas of art.
But now let us look at the content itself. I must admit, when I first saw the picture of this piece and didn't know it was the work of Banksy, I was unsure about its message. Obviously it criticizes either the use of the proverb or the proverb itself. In German there is spoof which goes more or less like “when the last gas-station has been closed, will we realize that we can't buy beer at Greenpeace in the middle of the night”. But of course it would be a rather sophisticated and intricate way, if it was just to mock environmental activism in general. No, someone who creates such an elaborate stencil and takes the risk of getting caught by the police must have some bigger idea in mind. Well, as soon a you know the man behind this work is Banksy, the intention becomes a lot clearer, especially when we take two other lines of his in account:
“Sometimes I feel so sick at the state of the world I can't even finish my second apple pie “
and
“We can't do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles, In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.”
Both are featured along with his “Only when the last tree”-version in his book “Wall and Piece” and deliver the message somewhat clearer in my opinion. Banksy targets self-righteous, complacent pseudo-activism of today's mainstream intellectual youth. Everyone wants to change the hunger in the world, but no one wants to give up his own luxury goods (apple pies). Everyone wants the world to be more social, but since it's not going to happen any time soon (and also not without a substantial amount of sacrifice), people enjoy the comforts of capitalism and keep it alive that way. Banksy's “Only when the last tree” addresses a similar phenomenon. “Reciting old proverb” may sound sophisticated, but in the and it does not change a thing. But some people think they have already done their share just with sophisticated talk and that is what the artist criticizes. So in the end the thesis would be that “reciting old proverb” gives you false sense of accomplishment, which prevents you from taking some real action
In order to reach his target group Banksy once more plays with the expectations of his audience. But this time not with the public in general but rather with the young, educated and politically sophisticated people who agree with or even support environmentalist ideas, but leave it on a conversational level instead of taking action. This group of people would usually rather agree with the ideas of street art and not condemn it, so upon first sight they would probably agree with this proverb in its optically appealing way. You could even say if not for the last two lines spraying the proverb on a public wall instead of taking more effective actions would exactly be to “recite old proverbs”, which “makes you sound like a twat”. But of course there is a bigger idea behind it, as suspected.
It is not before the last line that the reader realizes that this is not another attempt of straight forward attempt of environmental activism. It even might not be before the last word that you realize that something is out-of-key here. “Twat” is a strong vulgar term that harshly breaks with the rather formal and solemn register of the original proverb, which is also maintained up until the last word. By doing so Banksy gives the reader a false sense of security only to deal him a blow to the head in the end. As I have pointed out earlier contrasts are a key element of Banksy's. Here he uses very strong contrasts to make people question their own ways.
Whether or not you agree in general with the artist - he certainly has a point here: Action speaks louder than words. But to close with a quotation by the Greek thinker Diogenes, which Banksy by the way also (approvingly) used in his work:
“One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings”.
p.s.
Now, after writing this analysis and making up my mind about Banksy instead of fighting the evils in the world, I feel a bit bad about that. I briefly thought about setting the nearest Starbucks franchise on fire, but then I actually realized that it would probably change as much as reciting old poems (which is nothing, but giving me a false sense of accomplishment) and I don't want to sound like a twat.
First pic via
Second www.banksy.co.uk
