"You lose nothing when fighting for a cause...in my mind the losers are those who don’t have a cause they care about.”

 

Muhammad Ali

​

​

When I first heard of Francis Alÿs's and Santiago Sierra's practices I had opposite feelings and opinions for them; I was mesmerized by Alÿs’s subtle methods and outraged by Sierras daringness. While the first one uses allegories and poetic statements and actions in his works to address social and political issues, the latter does not hesitate to create situations where these same issues are exposed in a more “aggressive” way (if I may say so), exactly how the capitalist system works nowadays: no mercy on us. After researching more about the artists and backing off to critically analyze their works, I realized what bothered me in Sierra’s actions was exactly what made them strong, and on the other hand, what I liked on Alÿs’s pieces could also be their weakness: escape from reality. Having that in mind, I propose in this essay a comparison between their practices, more specifically two works: When Faith Moves Mountains (by Alÿs) and 250cm line tattooed on the back of six paid people (by Sierra).

Two main aspects will be analyzed in this confront – the ethics and the aesthetics in the works.

​

FRANCIS ALŸS vs. SANTIAGO SIERRA

​

In contemporary art one of the major sources for creation of works is globalization; artists can explore an infinite net of possibilities within this topic, through many different practices. Santiago Sierra and Francis Alÿs are good examples of this; both raise questions concerning social and political issues, either in a local or global scale, nonetheless always addressing problems in contemporary civilization. What follows is a brief profile of both opponents and how they take over these rings [1].

​

Whether by postcards, photographs, videos, drawings or actions, Francis Alÿs’s works have always two things in common: poetics and politics. As the Belgian artist said himself, “sometimes doing something poetic can become political, and sometimes doing something political can become poetic.” [2] What is hard though is defining the moment when that crossing happens. A poetic gesture for some might be interpreted as political for others; hence before turning into politics it has to be seen as poetics, and vice- versa. This condition allows the artist to work from both ways; once the audience notices the political or the poetic aspect of the work, it has already succeeded in part and what is left – this is the tricky part – is juxtaposing the other element (poetic/political) in order to become a full circle. I see this from two perspectives: It is interesting the openness of the work when it gets to the public, one can choose a more poetic reading of it, or see it from a political angle, anyhow it can always be reinterpreted given its multiple starting points; in addition Alÿs’s pluralistic practices provide altered channels for different publics to approach the works, getting out of it several messages [3]. On the other hand, it is the exact same vastness of possibilities that keeps the works floating between its meanings and intentions, never a solid ground; if something cannot be misread than its content is at the same proportion indeterminate [4].

​

Another important character of Alÿs’s works is the junction of the titles and texts with the images. He “will often find an axiom to accompany the work, such as „Maximum effort, Minimum result. We should not see a work merely as an illustration of this phrase; rather, the phrase acts as one concise interpretation of the work.” [5]; By doing so he challenges the public’s knowledge and invites them to rethink metaphors, proverbs and expressions, while at the same time reinforces the images and/or actions.

​

This is definitely a poetic aspect of his work [6], but also functions politically if one thinks of it as slogans for the actions, like two mighty uppercuts [7]. How the documentation is made and later on exhibited is crucial to Alÿs‟s works. He aims to “disseminate his works in as many ways as possible” [8] in order to reach more people and spread his message, this puts him in sync with globalized information methods, that way one can chose from videos to photos or postcards to have a first contact with his project. This simultaneously raises the question: what exactly is the artwork? Is it the action, the photo or the video? Can one strengthen the other (or weaken) or can they be seen as independent works? I will go back to this issue when examining his work When Faith Moves Mountains.

​

Spanish artist Santiago Sierra works primarily with people. Performances would not be appropriate to refer to his works considering that he is not physically doing anything, so I will use the term actions, with a warning for it not to be misinterpreted with activism [9]. The centre of these actions is a critique to the capitalist system, and in order to do so he usually hires people to “engage in some sort of useless and demeaning labour” [10], however this turns into the most criticized aspect of his works: he is “replicating the methods” [11] of capitalism itself. There are two important questions to be raised concerning this: The first one relates to how we see him and his methods of work – when do we judge him as an artist, and when as a person? [12] I personally find this the hardest part since I believe they can never be truly separated, therefore the judgment is upon both. He is showing us exactly how our society functions in a way that people can’t ignore it, and that for me is striking. Then again, he has a nice position in this society and that is what allows him to work this way, so he is at the same time cooperating for the maintenance of it. The second question refers to the aims of the actions – it is a pre-condition of them that the public already knows the subject [13], but it is also pre-determined that the outcome of the works are not going to change the situation, this means that the audience already knows the beginning and the end of the spectacle, there is no element of surprise. What to expect then and why even go see it? Because Sierra is making a confession that is valid for everyone, the fact that someone else is doing these actions makes us feel better persons and at the same time guilty for not doing anything to stop these issues [14].

​

In relation to recent art history, Sierra’s works have the ideas of Conceptualism with some formats of Minimalism; he sustains his concepts through minimal and literal documentation [15]. This practice leaves no room for multiple interpretations of the works and consequently reaffirms what he is stating, making his argument stronger, like a powerful hook [16]. But the problem here is that the more perspectives upon political and social issues the better, for it is exactly the variety of opinions that construct democratic solutions, in this sense the artist does not contribute for a mature discussion, or even for the development of the existing ones, given that the works are not opened for different readings. Finally, the objectiveness in his documentation is equally seen on the precision of the actions, thus both can be analyzed as independent artworks; what is not so clear in Sierra’s practices though is the role of the audience, and still, who exactly is this audience? I will get back to this when analyzing his work 250cm line tattooed on the back of six paid people.

​

Although there is much more material to be discussed in relation to the artists, I shall leave it to another situation and prioritize the examples to be compared. However, before that it is essential to place the reader within the environment of this clash and how the opponents behave in it.

​

THE RING: LATIN AMERICA

​

The term Latin America for me is a bit problematic; it generalizes many different countries and cultures reducing them to one stereotype of what are in fact unequal realities. Even so, I will adopt the term here considering the artists themselves use it to refer to some of the topics and locations of their works – which already places them as outsiders -, and because it is previously familiar for most writers and readers.

​

It is not only coincidence the two artists moved to Mexico City in their early careers: in fact, it became a condition for their success. Alÿs established his studio and home there in 1986; Sierra moved to the city almost a decade after (1995), but still the city had quite a few political and social issues to be solved, giving both of them the opportunity to make use of these problems in their works. For the two European artists Mexico City worked as a laboratory for their experiences, and in extension the “Latin American” continent where they have also made a range of projects, including the examples to be analyzed further on the text. What is ironic here is that most part of the documentation of their projects (videos, photos and others) is in North American or European collections (private and public), just like the majority of their exhibitions; this made me wonder: how deep is their engagement with the local issues? Considering they are working based on the flaws of these societies and with the local people’s participation in many cases, shouldn’t these works serve as material to improve the referred local issues, displayed in their context [17]? Not that by being outside they cannot have the same impact, but by not being inside they jeopardize their integrity. It seems like they use the under developed aspects of the region to produce the works, and therefore depend on them to continue producing; in these terms what is being criticized is in fact necessary for them, some people’s misery is another people’s glory [18]; in other words, if these issues were finally solved then they would have other issues to worry about: the validity of their own works [19].

THE AUDIENCE: SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE

​

When Guy Debord wrote Society of the Spectacle in 1967 he was in a specific context (before the revolutions in Paris in 1968) but his ideas were also referring to the capitalist society elsewhere. It is pointless here to analyse his texts in their original context, but I believe some of his thoughts can be read in relation to contemporary society and in an extend to Alÿs’s and Sierra’s projects.

​

Two of these ideas can be identified and re-evaluated: the influence of commodities and the representations in society. Alÿs has questioned once “how can one at the same time promote global economy and limit the movement of people around the globe?” [20] This can be applied to the Mexico/United States borders, where the rules for the traffic of people and commodities do not apply equally in both countries and Alÿs have already worked before addressing the similar concerns (The Loop, 1997). But Sierra on the other hand sees people as commodities as he already said21, which is understandable if we think of Debord’s definition of the spectacle and how it relates to the economy [22]. As for the artist’s actions and mainly the ones involving participation, they can be seen as re-enactments of the spectacles lived in our society [23], where the roles of the audience and the protagonists are not clearly defined. How these works are interpreted by the public might not be the same way they are presented – who is reading reality and who is purely consuming spectacles? Until what extend is the artwork reality and when does it become a spectacle? The audience is reliant on the illusion of the spectacle and so is the artist [24], the whole show develops under these conditions and what keep the magic of it are the dissimilar notions of reality. In a world where the boundaries between people/commodities and spectacles/realities are constantly changing, faith can move mountains and lines can be tattooed with the same intensity or for diverse purposes, it all depends on what the audience is willing to witness. [25]

​

THE POWER OF THE LINE

​

All set in the ring, here follow the rules: Through the next lines I exemplify what have been argued before in relation to the opponents and how their “social sculptures” [26] are structured; the confrontation takes form in two inter-related rounds – aesthetics and ethics [27] – and what is being analyzed are the actions themselves, not the documentation.

​

In order to describe the physical aspects of Francis Alÿs’s When Faith Moves Mountains (Lima, 2002) and Santiago Sierra’s 250cm line tattooed on the back of six paid people (Havana, 1999) I propose an interpretation of Wassily Kandinsky’s theory Point and Line to Plane (Munich, 1926) outside of painting, applied to contemporary practices as himself suggests [28]. In short Kandinsky states that the three basic elements in painting are the point, the line and the plane, and the quality of the work depends on the balance between these elements in the surface. When Faith Move Mountains is a performance directed by Alÿs for the Third Biennale of Lima, where 500 volunteers in the outskirts of the city align to move a 500m-long sand dune by 10cm from its original place using the same uniform and shovels. 250cm line tattooed on the back of six paid people can also be called a directed performance, where 6 unemployed men were paid US$30 to have a straight horizontal line tattooed across their backs in the Old Havana art space Espacio Aglutinador. [29]

​

If one pictures both scenes as canvases, the desert in Alÿss piece becomes the plane, the line is made by the volunteers and the points are the participants themselves; the backs of the unemployed men are the plane in Sierra’s work, the line is the tattoo and the points are made by the ink itself. While Sierra’s line is sturdy and precise in the plane, going from left to right all the way, Alÿs has trouble defining the plane itself and his line does not have the same impact considering its uncertain relation with the plane, loosen in the space. However, Alÿs’s points are literally alive and notorious on the plane regardless of the line, while Sierra’s points are held in his line and do not exist in the plane without it. This comparison could go on exploring other aspects, such as textures (uniform vs. shirtless) and techniques (the needle vs. the shovels), and I invite the reader to think about it. My evaluation in this round is even, although the results of the next one might affect this criteria according to Berys Gaut’s Ethicism theory [30]; since the outcomes are in different scales – Alÿs’s work could be a large painting and Sierra’s a smaller format – they require dissimilar stances from the opponents, in addition the aesthetic harmony inside the works also lies in the eyes and taste of the beholder, thus, this issue now becomes a neutral corner [31].

​

The second round evokes the moral and ethical elements within the works, and the participatory feature is crucial to this. Francis Alÿs argues that his work is “an attempt to cast a profane light on the significance that social movements and political transitions have on their own” [32] questioning “the iconography and concepts of mass politics, insofar as it addressed the significance of poetic motifs and affects in political formations.” [33] This refers to the context of the work at the time, when the country had just switched from a dictatorship to a democratic system. Sierra on his side wants to show the audience how far people can go for money, bringing to the gallery the reality of capitalist world [34] and arguing “the tattoo is not the problem. The problem is the existence of social conditions that allow me to make this work.” [35] To reach their goals, both artists need other people willing to do what they demand, this participatory aspect has opposite settings: Alÿs worked with volunteer students from the core of Lima in the margins of the city, claiming that paying people for the work would be contradictory to the message since it is not based on the power of capital, but instead on the power of willingness [36]; his key method to attract participants was the poetic metaphor of the title. [37] Sierra made clear since the title that his piece is completely based on capitalist practices and therefore it is necessary for its coherence that the people participated had to be paid; in this case he had people living in the margins of society placed in the centre of the city.

​

How these participants relate to the artists and at the same time how does it affect the audience can be analyzed through Nicolas Bourriaud’s Relational Aesthetics theory [38]: What do the participants gain from the work? In Alÿs’s project what they experience in the moment becomes a lifetime memory for them, further on spread through rumors throughout the globe turning into a borderless sign of conviction in which they were part of. The six unemployed men working with Sierra will remain unemployed after the action, but perhaps the marks left on their backs will become a source of individual motivation. What is in it for the artist? Alÿs gets international projection through the rumors and documentation, along with credibility to produce new works. Sierra also gets large visibility because of the polemic involved in his practices, as well as the confirmation of his premise. As for the audience – and this is the hardest to achieve as said by Claire Bishop [39] - it is all relative; for the audience in the site of Alÿs’s piece (the crew and the community in the nearby favelas) the action becomes a legend, a similar thing happens in Lima but with less emphasis since not everyone will give it the same importance and there are other events happening in the city. Finally the global audience – if there is such thing – gets... hope? Faith? Maybe, depending on how much these people will give significance to an action isolated in a desert with no direct relation to their lives [40]. Sierra’s audience in the moment of the action have mixed emotions, some might feel pleasure in seeing it, and others will feel guilty with it [41]. The people in Havana will hear about it and their engagement will be similar to the “global audience” – they will be reminded of something they already know and perhaps think about it, and in a few cases try to do something about it. [42]

​

Finally, whether the stances and strategies the opponents adopt within the ropes of the ring are ethically acceptable or break the rules is an opened question. Alÿs can be accused of using the participants for “massive futility” [43] while Sierra is constantly appointed as an exploiter. The fact is that there is a previous agreement that is honored between the participants and the artists, what is not really established is how the audience perceives this arrangement and the implications coming out of it. Linking back to Ethicism, “if, despite its ethical corruption, the work does emotionally engage, then its ethical badness is not an aesthetic defect.” [44] In these terms, it is up to the audience to judge the qualities of these emotions. When is hard to draw the line between ethical understandings, what remains is the power of what the artists address beneath the aesthetic lines45; without a knock-down this round is over and the decision is left to a last one.

​

FINAL ROUND

​

What Alÿs and Sierra propose is an analysis to our current way of living and the consequences of it. How they do so is not coherent though, given they go to opposite extremes to achieve it – Alÿs can be too soft while Sierra can be too hard on the practices. A midterm would be more appropriate to approach these issues, where Sierra incorporates poetic aspects to elevate his works and Alÿs acknowledges reality and instead of avoiding it actually uses it to consolidate his outcome. But by reaching this balance it does not mean that the work would be more powerful; if the world is not an exact equation with equivalent amounts on each side than the solution is not through the balance of the works themselves, but in fact a combination of the same resulting in a third element. In these circumstances, Alÿs's and Sierra’s tactics might not have this balance so far, but the combination of their jabs is close to it. Regardless of the result, I must state that the efforts and intentions involved in their works should serve as a bell ring calling us for a bigger fight.

​

__

​

[1] Boxing Terms. 08 May 2011 <http://www.docsports.com/boxing/boxing-terms.html>.
[2] Godfrey, Mark, Klaus Biesenbach and Kerryn Greenberg, Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010. Pg. 39

[3] “(...) rather than being fixed as a collection of objects and images, a gallery installation or an idea, Alÿs‟s project can be all of these. The work itself crosses borders (...)”.Godfrey, Mark, Klaus Biesenbach and Kerryn Greenberg, Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010. Pg. 28.
[4] “This raises the question as to whether it is precisely the „poetic‟ character of Alÿs‟s act that prevents it from having a political charge.” Godfrey, Mark, Klaus Biesenbach and Kerryn Greenberg, Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010. Pg. 24.

[5] Godfrey, Mark, Klaus Biesenbach and Kerryn Greenberg, Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010. Pg. 11.

[6] “he recognises that in boiling down a project to its postcard text and image, its poetic character can be retained, its openness to new interpretations and new uses guaranteed.” Godfrey, Mark, Klaus Biesenbach and Kerryn Greenberg, Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010. Pg.11.
[7] Boxing Terms. 08 May 2011 <http://www.docsports.com/boxing/boxing-terms.html>.

[8] Godfrey, Mark, Klaus Biesenbach and Kerryn Greenberg, Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010. Pg. 15.
[9] “he is not an activist, he just makes art.” David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007. Pg. 9.

[10] David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007. Pg. 9.

[11] David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007. Pg. 9.

[12] “What is it that we are judging? Is it the behaviour of an individual? That is, are we judging if Sierra himself is a good or a bad person? Are we judging him for his ideas, for his public opinions, or for his actions? Or are we judging his work as an artist, as a good or a bad artist.” David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007. Pg. 9.

[13] “Sierra‟s work does not make „real issues‟ visible, because it counts on the visibility of the issues that it deals with as being already given, as determinate configurations.” David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007. Pg. 33.

[14] “These works do not solve anything, and do not announce the dawn of a new and brighter day. In the end what they say, if they are saying anything at all, is a warning (...) But they are also a painful confession.” David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007. Pg. 35.

[15] “The photographs and videos that document his works are always black and white, the font he uses is always Helvetica, and the structure of the title and descriptions of the works are homogeneous.” David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007. Pg. 27.
[16] Boxing Terms. 08 May 2011 <http://www.docsports.com/boxing/boxing-terms.html>

[17] Even the names of the artworks were first established in Spanish (Cuando la fe mueve montañas; Línea de 250cm tatuada sobre seis personas remuneradas).
[18] “the greatness of art only emerges at the dusk of life.” Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Trans. Ken Knabb. London: Rebel Press, 2005 (orig.1967). Pg. 104.

[19] “Incompletion is not only the theme of the individual allegories, but also characterizes the trajectory of Alÿs‟s allegorical works: a central set of concerns around modernization have been explored and re-articulated from one work to the next, necessarily without resolution, since the subject itself is unresolved.” Godfrey, Mark, Klaus Biesenbach and Kerryn Greenberg, Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010. Pg. 18.

[20] Godfrey, Mark, Klaus Biesenbach and Kerryn Greenberg, Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010. Pg.26.

[21] “They are the cheapest and most abundant material there is.” Time Out Interview. 09 May 2011

<http://www.timeout.com/london/art/features/3908/Santiago_Sierra-interview.html>

[22] “The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images.”

“The spectacle is able to subject human beings to itself because the economy has already totally subjugated them. It is nothing other than the economy developing for itself”. Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Trans. Ken Knabb. London: Rebel Press, 2005 (orig.1967). Pg. 7 and 10.

[23] “In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation.” Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Trans. Ken Knabb. London: Rebel Press, 2005 (orig.1967). Pg. 7.
[24] “Nevertheless, in his works Sierra deliberately creates some sort of illusion, an illusion aimed at making the spectator perceive his work from a specific point of view.” David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007. Pg. 13.

[25] “In a world that is really upside down, the true is a moment of the false.” Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Trans. Ken Knabb. London: Rebel Press, 2005 (orig.1967). Pg.9.
[26] The term was created by Joseph Beuys in the 1970s to refer to artworks that expend the physical extent of sculpture, where the viewer not only sees the work but also engages with it.

[27] “Every phenomenon can be experienced in two ways. These two ways are not arbitrary, but are bound up with the phenomenon – developing out of its nature and characteristics: Externally – or – inwardly.” Kandinsky, Wassily. Point and Line to Plane. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1979 (orig.1926). Pg.17.

[28] “This work leads to such inner revelations as can be given to each epoch.” Kandinsky, Wassily. Point and Line to Plane. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1979 (orig.1926). Pg. 146.

[29] It is interesting to note that both artists make frequent use of the line as symbols in their body of works, for instance: Francis Alÿs‟s Don‟t Cross the Bridge Before You Get to the River (Strait of Gibraltar, 2008) and The Green Line (Jerusalem, 2004); Santiago Sierra‟s similar versions of the line tattooed on people‟s back (Salamanca, 2000 and Mexico City, 1998)

[30] “Ethicism is the thesis that the ethical assessment of attitudes manifested by works of art is a legitimate aspect of the aesthetic evaluation of those works, such that, if a work manifests ethically reprehensible attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically defective, and if a work manifests ethically commendable attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically meritorious.” Levinson, Jerrold, ed. Aesthetics and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pg.182.

[31] Boxing Terms. 08 May 2011 <http://www.docsports.com/boxing/boxing-terms.html>.
[32] Godfrey, Mark, Klaus Biesenbach and Kerryn Greenberg, Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010. Pg.27.

[33] Godfrey, Mark, Klaus Biesenbach and Kerryn Greenberg, Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010. Pg. 129.
[34] “The assumption is that by putting it „as it is‟ before our eyes, instead of representing it or merely documenting it, Sierra multiplies it.” David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007. Pg. 29.

[35] Spiegler, Mark. “When Human Beings Are the Canvas.” June 2003. ARTnews. 08 May 2011 <http://www.artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=1335>
[36] “One of the piece‟s intentions was to explore alternative methods of action to those of the capitalist system and its mass media. To pay people for their participation would have contradicted the concept of the piece by involving economic coercion instead of individual wills.” Alÿs, Francis and Cuauhtémoc Medina. When Faith Moves Mountains. Madrid: Turner, 2005. Pg. 90.
[37] Alÿs, Francis and Cuauhtémoc Medina. When Faith Moves Mountains. Madrid: Turner, 2005. Pg. 90.

[38] “Aesthetic theory consisting in judging artworks on the basis of the inter-human relations which they represent, produce or prompt.” Bourriaud, Nicolas. Relational Aesthetics. Trans. Simon Pleasance and Fronza Woods. les presses du réel, 2002. (orig.1998). Pg. 112.

[39] “The tasks facing us today are to analyze how contemporary art addresses the viewer and to assess the quality of the audience relations it produces.” Bishop, Claire. “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics.” October Fall (2004). Pg. 78.

[40] “The artist directs a local performance in a real landscape on the fringe of a city that is on the fringe of the artworld for a virtual audience dispersed throughout the globe.” Susan Buck-Morss. Alÿs, Francis and Cuauhtémoc Medina. When Faith Moves Mountains. Madrid: Turner, 2005.Pg. 141.

[41] “Members of the audience feel there is a conflict when they find themselves in an uncomfortable situation: if the artist set this scene for me I do not like what he is doing to me, and although I know that I am somehow involved, I do not know how.” David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007. Pg. 35.

[42] “He is telling us something we already know(...) he (a white European male) is using them – who are already used, underprivileged, exploited, and enslaved – merely to make a profit that he won‟t even share with a charity of his choice.” David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007. Pg. 11.

[43] Susan Buck-Morss in: Alÿs, Francis and Cuauhtémoc Medina. When Faith Moves Mountains. Madrid: Turner, 2005.Pg. 140.

[44] Levinson, Jerrold, ed. Aesthetics and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pg. 197.

[45] “Art‟s capacity to keep alive certain moral perspectives, even if these views diverge radically from our present moral outlook, can help us remain alert to life‟s possibilities and our own potentialities. This is a benefit that is neither merely aesthetic, nor solely moral; it is both at once.” Karen Hanson in: Levinson, Jerrold, ed. Aesthetics and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pg.222.

​

Bibliography

​

Alÿs, Francis and Cuauhtémoc Medina. When Faith Moves Mountains. Madrid: Turner, 2005.

Bishop, Claire. “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics.” October Fall (2004): 51-79.

—. Participation. Ed. Claire Bishop. London: Whitechapel Gallery, 2006.

Bourriaud, Nicolas. Relational Aesthetics. Trans. Simon Pleasance and Fronza Woods. les presses du réel, 2002. (orig. 1998).

Boxing Terms. 08 May 2011 <http://www.docsports.com/boxing/boxing-terms.html>.

David, Mariana, et al. SANTIAGO SIERRA 7 TRABAJOS / 7 WORKS. London: Lisson Gallery, 2007.

Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Trans. Ken Knabb. London: Rebel Press, 2005 (orig.1967).

Downey, Anthony. “Towards a Politics of (Relational) Aesthetics.” Third Text 21.3 (2007): 267-275.

Francis Alÿs. 8 May 2011 <http://www.francisalys.com>.

Godfrey, Mark, Klaus Biesenbach and Kerryn Greenberg, Francis Alÿs: A Story of Deception. London: Tate Publishing, 2010.

Heidenreich, Stefan. “Review Santiago Sierra.” Issue 57 March 2001. Frieze Magazine. 08 May 2011 <http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/santiago_sierra/>.

Kandinsky, Wassily. Point and Line to Plane. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1979 (orig.1926).

Kester, Grant. “Lessons in Futility: Francis Alÿs and the Legacy of May 68.” Third Text (2009): 407-420.

Levinson, Jerrold, ed. Aesthetics and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Santiago Sierra. 8 May 2011 <http://www.santiago-sierra.com>.

Spiegler, Mark. “When Human Beings Are the Canvas.” June 2003. ARTnews. 08 May 2011 <http://www.artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=1335>.

Time Out Interview. 09 May 2011

<http://www.timeout.com/london/art/features/3908/Santiago_Sierra-interview.html>.