Santiago Sierra - not everything is acceptable in the name of art

Taking a break from waterfalls, fjords and geysers, we took a trip to Reykjavik Art Museum, which we soon regretted. Apart from two rooms of Erro (more on him soon), the bulk of the museum was taken up with a Santiago Sierra retrospective. I had never heard of Sierra before but it didn't take me long to get an idea of his work. I couldn't believe so much space was dedicated to films and photographs that were so disturbing that I had to go back to Erro again just to cleanse my mind a little. I'm clearly not alone, as researching him just now I found this (warning: expletives).

So what's the fuss about? Art is one of the most subjective things imaginable. There always has been and always will be fierce debate about what 'real' art is and where to do draw the line. I'm quite open minded when it comes to art. I learnt from Duchamp and the Dadaists that found objects can be considered works of art if invested with meaning and placed in a gallery. I understand that artists want to make a point - be it political, personal or just aesthetic - by pushing the boundaries of convention. But what I can't accept is that exploitation is condoned by galleries in the name of art.

The bulk of Santiago Sierra's work - at least that on display in this exhibition - is about exploitation. He claims he is raising awareness but it seems to me that he is using these pieces more to heighten his own fame and notoriety than to spark any real social change. He pays people, desperate people, tiny amounts to do humiliating tasks, films them and puts them on display under the guise of 'art'. One piece showed an orgy, rotating each combination of men and women, black and white, all in the same position in a large hall, filmed in a startlingly clinical way. I'm not exactly the most prudish person, but it made me feel horribly uncomfortable because it was so dehumanising. I assume Sierra wants us to feel uncomfortable, but there is no purpose beyond this. This discomfort doesn't seem designed to spur us into political action. Another piece featured an elderly woman, paid to spend all day standing staring at a wall. A third, a group of Albanians struggling to move blocks of concrete across a gallery by hand. Sierra may rationalise these films by arguing that they show just how far desperate people will go for money, but to me they just seem utterly sadistic. I'm not suggesting that all art should be escapist, but forcing people into unnatural, extreme, degrading activities (even if they 'give their consent') is not going to do any more to change people's attitudes and improve conditions for the destitute. Rather the opposite - I had to quickly get away from Sierra's exhibition and left not motivated to social action but raging about what is being passed off as art.