Gao Shen: A Helpless Defence and Confession — My Final Statement

Honourable Judge, ladies and gentlemen present in this courtroom:

Thank you, Presiding Judge, for providing me, in accordance with the law, with this opportunity and time to make my “final statement.” Since I remain, to this day, a suspect awaiting a final verdict, and in accordance with the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, please allow me to make my defence and statement as an artist who holds Christian beliefs.

At the suggestion of my defence lawyer, and in order to better exercise the legitimate rights granted to defendants by the Constitution, I will speak through writing and prepare a written text, so that Your Honour may have a relatively detailed and sufficient reference when reaching the final judgment.

I am deeply ashamed that, as a Christian, I do not know why God allowed me to suffer this misfortune in my old and frail age, rather than twenty years ago, when I still felt young and strong. After all, it was the three old sculptures I created more than twenty years ago, which have been accused of being criminal, that are the principal reason why I am today regarded by the relevant authorities as a “criminal suspect” and have been placed in the dock. Faced with such a long interval of time, although I am perplexed, I believe that it contains a profound meaning that I cannot yet comprehend.

At this moment, I feel as though I have fallen into a dream whose ending I do not know, or perhaps accidentally entered a theatrical experimental theatre, where I have been forced to play a villainous role beyond my abilities; or perhaps, through some chance occurrence, I have passively taken part in a collaborative work of performance art.

Yet everything before me at this moment is real, certain and unavoidable — I am standing in the dock.

This scene inevitably reminds me of two respected sages of the “Su” family: one is the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, and the other is Su Dongpo, the great literary figure of the Northern Song dynasty. This must be because, in the eras in which they lived, both of these sages, like me, unfortunately found themselves in the dock on the basis of some groundless charge. Moreover, the nature of their charges was broadly similar: neither was related to the money that people covet, and both were crimes arising from speech (artistic creation should also fall within the scope of expression).

The charge against the former was “impiety toward the gods of the state and corrupting the young,” while the latter was charged with “criticising the imperial carriage and harbouring malicious intentions” (defaming the imperial court). The former, because he adhered to his philosophical concept of “knowing that one knows nothing,” regularly examined the supposedly “learned men” of his time who believed they knew everything, exposing their ignorance, thereby offending the Confucian scholars, who fabricated charges and brought him before the court. The latter was imprisoned and impeached by the imperial censorate in the second year of Yuanfeng during the reign of Emperor Shenzong of the Northern Song, after writing poems including “Ode to the Cypress” — an incident known in history as the “Crow Terrace Poetry Case,” which marked the beginning of literary inquisitions in Chinese history.

The former voluntarily gave up the opportunity to escape death by fleeing abroad, which was permitted by the law of the time, and rejected the final opportunity offered by his wealthy friend Crito to rescue him. He calmly faced the Athenian court and its jury of five hundred, completed his “final statement” (The Apology of Socrates), and at the end of his speech left behind a thought-provoking final saying: “The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our separate ways — I to die, and you to live. Which is better, only God knows.” He then drank a cup of hemlock that has moved later generations to sigh, calmly went to his death, and bade farewell to the world of right and wrong.

The latter, shortly after being imprisoned, was fortunate to have Emperor Shenzong personally read the case documents. The emperor wrote instructions including, “The poet’s words have nothing to do with me,” ordered his release, and demoted him to Huangzhou. He subsequently wrote the enduring masterpieces First Ode on the Red Cliffs and Second Ode on the Red Cliffs.

Coincidentally, when Socrates was charged, and when I find myself in the dock today, both of us were nearly seventy-year-old elderly men, and both had young children at home who still required care and companionship. Yet he was able to let go calmly and go willingly to his death, whereas, because I think of my young child waiting day and night for his father to return home, after spending more than half a year in prison I eagerly hope to return home as soon as possible and reunite with my family.

This is presumably because, in my heart, love and freedom, as well as the importance of the responsibility of being a father, far outweigh adherence to certain other values, and outweigh the pursuit of a reputation after death.

Honourable Judge, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow citizens, please forgive me for recounting the historical facts and allusions above before describing the specific circumstances of this case. I have done so absolutely not with the intention of associating myself with the sages or seeking fame.

I know my own limitations: compared with the two sages, the former was a prophet sent by God to humanity in the “Axial Age” — one of the founders of Western and even all human civilisation, whose significance for China and the world was equally great as that of the contemporaneous Chinese sages Laozi, Confucius and Mencius; the latter was a great poet, painter and calligrapher whose influence on China was profound. I, by contrast, am merely a “Su fan” who admires the two sages — simply a contemporary artist undergoing the erosion of time and still awaiting historical examination and positioning.

My mention of them, beyond the natural association arising from the fact that we happen to share a rather similar experience of being charged with crimes, is intended above all to remind everyone, myself included, that we are all merely passers-by in the process of time’s passage and historical development. What each of us says and does today determines the role and position each of us will occupy in future history.

Whether what we do today can withstand historical scrutiny depends on whether each of us possesses an innate conscience, whether we possess the professional ethics appropriate to our respective roles, and whether we possess personal qualities, moral courage and a sense of justice that transcend worldly interests.

Taking history as a mirror is the spiritual safeguard that prevents each of us from doing things today that bring disgrace upon our dignity and honour.

Therefore, I kindly and humbly remind Your Honour, the judge who today holds the power to determine whether the defendant is guilty or innocent and what punishment should be imposed: you are the embodiment of whether the current law is just. Specifically in this case, I respectfully ask Your Honour to strictly examine whether it is compliant for the prosecution to use the criminal provision newly added in 2021 — “the crime of infringing upon the reputation or honour of heroes and martyrs” — to accuse the sculptures I created between 2005 and 2009, when no such crime existed, of being “criminal”; and whether this violates the basic legal common sense and principle that “whatever is not prohibited by law is permitted.”

Making an impartial and just judgment is the unavoidable responsibility and honour of Your Honour, the judge in this case.

Below, I will make the necessary and specific defence and statement regarding the indictment served on me.

First, let us look at the opening paragraph of the indictment, which identifies my address and identity: “The defendant Gao Shen … currently resides in Workshop 7-A, Baishijingu Industrial Park, Yanjiao Development Zone, Sanhe City, Langfang, Hebei Province, and is a supervisor of Sanhe Ruiyi Trading Co., Ltd.”

First, as to my address, the Provisions on the Procedures for Public Security Organs Handling Criminal Cases clearly state: “The place of habitual residence refers to the place where a citizen has continuously resided for more than one year after leaving the place of household registration.” According to this provision, my habitual residence should be somewhere in New York, United States, rather than the “Baishijingu Industrial Park in Yanjiao” identified in the indictment.

This place was merely a temporary residence where I stayed for approximately two months in June 2024, when I returned to China with my wife and child to visit relatives and organise belongings. In fact, I immigrated to New York in 2012 as a “person of outstanding ability.” Although I have frequently travelled between New York and Beijing over the past decade or more, whenever I returned to China I generally stayed temporarily in Beijing’s 798 Art District. I have never treated the workshop in Baishijingu Industrial Park as my habitual residence; its actual function was simply that of a warehouse for storing objects, including works of art.

Therefore, I have reason to suspect that the prosecution treated this place as my habitual residence perhaps in order to resolve the issue of its jurisdiction over the case.

Next, let us look at its identification of my identity: “supervisor of Sanhe Ruiyi Trading Co., Ltd.”

Before this, I had never heard of the position of “supervisor” to which it refers, and even today I do not understand precisely what duties a “supervisor” performs. My identity as an artist, however, is known to everyone. In view of the prosecution’s mistaken identification of my identity, it is necessary here to give a brief account of my artistic career:

In 1978, after the Cultural Revolution, I was admitted to the Shandong School of Arts and Crafts. After graduating in 1981, I was assigned to the Jinan Mass Art Gallery, where I worked in art instruction. Not long afterwards, I was transferred to the Jinan Academy of Painting (now the Jinan Art Museum) to engage in professional artistic creation. In my twenties, I became the youngest professional painter at the institution at that time. Until my retirement in 2016 and to this day, I have continuously engaged in contemporary and modern art.

My works have been exhibited in art museums, galleries and other art spaces in many countries around the world. They have been included in important academic works such as A History of Modern Chinese Art, A History of Contemporary Chinese Art, A History of Twentieth-Century Chinese Art and A History of Chinese Avant-Garde Art Thought. Several works have also been collected by renowned art institutions, including the Centre Pompidou in France and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art in the United States. This is sufficient to show that my true identity is that of an artist, not a company “supervisor.”

What is doubtful is that, after I was detained on 26 August 2024, the case officers interrogated me more than thirty times. They told me that they had visited the Jinan Art Museum (my former workplace) and had also conducted an investigation at my former art studio in Beijing (the 798 Art District), and were fully aware that my true identity was that of an artist.

Then why, after investigating for ten months, did they refuse to acknowledge my true identity in the indictment and forcibly fabricate an identity as a “supervisor”?

It is not difficult to see from the context of the indictment that the reason the prosecution identified my address as Baishijingu Industrial Park in Yanjiao and described my identity as that of a “supervisor” was not only to make the jurisdiction of the case appear compliant, but also deliberately to detach me from my identity as an artist, so that the accused works of art would appear more like the result of the “malicious production” of a non-art professional who “harboured resentment,” ultimately establishing as a “fact” that I had committed an intentional crime.

In my humble view, as public-authority organs responsible for maintaining public order and punishing illegal and criminal acts, the public security, procuratorial and judicial organs should, in accordance with the attitude and principles of seeking truth from facts, objectivity and impartiality, use facts as the basis and the law as the standard, and objectively and fairly determine whether a defendant is guilty and what crime has been committed. They should not, on the basis of subjective prejudice, wrongly conclude matters, fabricate “facts,” or even manufacture a particular kind of “criminal.”

Conducting matters in this way not only violates the principle of governing the country according to law, but will also produce Cultural Revolution-style unjust, false and wrongful cases, causing the current law to lose its proper dignity. The catastrophe of the Cultural Revolution should serve as a warning and be taken as a lesson.

The second paragraph of the indictment states: “This case was investigated and concluded by the Sanhe City Public Security Bureau and, on 28 November 2024, was transferred to this court for prosecution on the suspicion that the defendant Gao Shen had committed the crime of infringing upon the reputation or honour of heroes and martyrs. After accepting the case, this court … heard the opinions of the defence counsel … Because some facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, the case was returned to the public security organ twice for supplementary investigation. Because the case was major and complex, the period for reviewing and initiating prosecution was extended three times.”

However, during this period my defence lawyer twice applied for bail pending trial on the grounds that I was elderly and frail, suffered from problems with my lower back and legs, and had difficulty moving, but neither application was approved. The lawyer also proposed that I be sentenced according to the sentencing practices applicable to similar cases in the past, but that proposal was not accepted either.

This shows that although the prosecution “heard” the defence counsel’s opinion, it did not “accept” it. It should therefore not be stated generally that the opinions of the defence counsel were heard, lest people mistakenly believe that the defence and the prosecution were in agreement.

The third paragraph of the indictment states: “It has been legally established that, between 2005 and 2009, the defendant Gao Shen, harbouring resentment toward the former national leader, colluded with others to maliciously produce a large number of sculptures in his studio in Beijing’s 798 Art District that distorted and vilified the heroic image of the former national leader, and transported them overseas for exhibition and interviews and reports in the name of the Gao brothers. Thereafter, Gao Shen moved the above sculptures to Workshop 7-A, Baishijingu Industrial Park, Yanjiao Development Zone, Sanhe City, Hebei Province, for storage.”

It should be acknowledged that the creation dates, locations, exhibition dates and post-exhibition storage location of the sculptures I am accused of creating, as described in this paragraph, are basically accurate. I gave the same account during each of my interrogations by the public security authorities.

However, I strongly disagree with the characterising terms “harbouring resentment” and “distorting and vilifying” used in the indictment. Such expressions carry a strong element of subjective arbitrariness and constitute an argument directed at a person based on a presumption of guilt, rather than objective and rigorous legal language.

More importantly, this description is seriously inconsistent with my actual motives and state of mind as a professional artist when creating these works, as well as with the artistic ideas ultimately presented by the works.

Below, I will make a more specific defence against the inaccurate statements in this paragraph.

First, the so-called “large number.” This presumably refers to the work Miss Mao. It is true that, in order to create a satisfactory Pop Art work with local characteristics, I spent a great deal of time and material experimenting and comparing. I produced test pieces in different sizes, with the aim of determining which effect best accorded with my original creative intention.

However, for an artist, no matter how much effort is expended during the creative process or how many experimental pieces are produced, ultimately it is often possible to select only one as the final version to be exhibited within the art system. As when the work was exhibited at the Spencer Museum of Art in Kansas in the United States, only one work was presented, rather than filling the exhibition hall with all the experimental and unfinished pieces.

This is the same as a manufacturer using substantial resources to design and compare various prototypes in order to produce a high-quality product, ultimately selecting one model for release.

Therefore, it is highly inappropriate for the indictment to lump together the experimental pieces, defective products and unfinished pieces held in large quantities awaiting disposal and equate them with my “large number” of criminal acts.

As for the other two works, Execution and Repentance, each was a unique work after completion, and there is no question of a “large number.” It is only that Execution is a large installation composed of eight individual statues, and because of its considerable size it was mistakenly regarded as involving a “large number.”

Thus, the word “large number” used by the prosecutor here is neither accurate nor free from the suspicion that it is intended to mislead the court into imposing a heavier sentence.

Next, I will combine the creative ideas behind the specific works to make a detailed defence against expressions such as “harbouring resentment,” “malicious production” and “distorting and vilifying.”

In chronological order, I will first discuss Miss Mao, created between 2005 and 2006.

The main form of this work originated in a cartoon doll sold in shops at the time (a readymade). Its hairstyle borrowed an element from a widely known public image, to which were added Pinocchio’s long nose and a pair of female breasts. The work was created by deconstructing and synthesising these four elements.

Please note that using readymade objects and public-image resources to transform symbols and incorporate an artist’s ideas is a creative method commonly used by contemporary artists in China and abroad, and is also a prominent feature of Pop Art.

The classic example is the French artist Duchamp drawing two small moustaches on a reproduction of the Mona Lisa, thereby opening the way for conceptual art. The American Pop master Andy Warhol went even further, transforming the portraits of celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe and Mao Zedong into cultural symbols that could be reproduced in batches.

In China’s famous “Political Pop” movement, the image symbol of the “former national leader” referred to in the indictment was precisely one of the resources most frequently used by artists to represent the cultural characteristics of a particular period. My “Miss Mao” (Miss Mao) is one expression within this movement.

In terms of artistic methodology, this image accurately corresponds to and expresses a complex cultural characteristic of the “post-Mao era” (after the Cultural Revolution): it retains the political imprint of the past while also presenting the relatively relaxed, absurd and even humorous atmosphere of the era.

In short, Miss Mao is an artistic image that is neither quite one thing nor the other. I deliberately shaped it in a feminine or cartoon form precisely to avoid its being rigidly equated with a specific real person.

The indictment’s direct equation of it with the “former national leader” is not only a serious misreading, but also demeans the conceptual meaning of the work: it points to every Chinese person living in that historical context and influenced by its ideas.

Now let us consider Execution and Repentance, created between 2007 and 2009.

The inspiration for both works came from the film performances of the special-type actor Gu Yue and the prostitution scandal involving him at the time; they were consequently created using Gu Yue as the prototype and model.

Execution also has a compositional source: the famous painting The Execution of Emperor Maximilian by Manet, a pioneer of French Impressionism. I borrowed the classic composition of Manet’s work, replacing the soldiers holding guns with seven special-type actors resembling Gu Yue, who point their weapons at a “Jesus Christ” modelled on a French man.

The reason for presenting Gu Yue in plural form — seven figures — was precisely to indicate that this image did not specifically refer to the “great man” played by Gu Yue. Otherwise, creating a single gunman would have been sufficient.

Activating the vitality of classics in the contemporary era and provoking critical reflection through the “parody” and “appropriation” of art-historical classics is a legitimate artistic pursuit for a contemporary artist.

I hoped to use an ambiguous figure such as Gu Yue, who was simultaneously an ordinary person, a celebrity and a special-type actor, to confront “Jesus Christ” and stimulate viewers to reflect on major questions such as the relationship between God and humanity, differences between Eastern and Western cultures, violence and peace, and confrontation and reconciliation.

How could a work created out of such profound artistic contemplation be accused of “malicious production” and “distorting and vilifying”?

Leaving aside for the moment whether the prototype of this work was Gu Yue or the “former national leader,” I respectfully ask the prosecutor to find the historical footage from 1962, when Luo Ruiqing led the “Great Military Competition,” showing relevant leaders firing guns, and compare it with my work. Is there any sign of “vilification” in the modelling of its forms?

If an artist truly wanted to maliciously vilify someone, would it not be better to choose the simplest and most forceful cartoon form? Why would anyone spend nearly three years and enormous human and material resources making a large realistic sculpture?

At this point, I recall an incident: when the work had just been completed in 2009, I placed a sculpture of Gu Yue holding a gun on a tree at the first floor of Village Tree Café in the 798 district, and asked Officer Hou from the police station next door to see whether it was appropriate. After viewing it, Officer Hou and his superiors all said: “There is no distortion or vilification, and there is no problem.”

Why, seventeen years later, are the Sanhe public security authorities and the prosecutor accusing the same work of “maliciously distorting and vilifying”?

At the pre-trial conference held recently, the prosecutor stated: “The large number of sculptures and photographs in this case either contain elements using the typical characteristics of heroic figures, or directly replicate heroic figures.”

These two “eithers” precisely show that my work contains no so-called “distortion or vilification,” because if it is a “direct replication,” it is impossible for it to produce a vilifying effect.

This can only show that “vilification” is merely the prosecutor’s subjective prejudice, not an objective fact about the work. The indictment’s self-contradictory accusation is tantamount to framing me.

As for the creative concept of Repentance: this work was likewise inspired by rumours about Gu Yue and was created using Gu Yue as its prototype.

As a special-type actor who specialised in portraying leaders, Gu Yue’s scandal not only damaged his own reputation, but also hurt the feelings of those followers and worshippers who deeply associated him with the image of the leader (the prosecutor’s view of my work today has likewise fallen into this kind of deep association).

If Gu Yue were made to express repentance through art, this would produce considerable artistic tension. At the same time, it could express, through this means, my awareness as a Christian of repentance for humanity’s original sin, as well as my indirect reflection on the history of the Cultural Revolution.

Kneeling in repentance is the most devout posture of a Christian. It is absolutely not the “harbouring of resentment” alleged in the indictment. On the contrary, from a certain perspective, creating this work was an act of intercession undertaken with good intentions. It was precisely for this reason that the figure’s expression was rendered so solemn, profound and realistic.

It is true that once an artwork is completed it possesses an independent life. Some people have criticised this work as tending toward “idealisation” (because an atheist could not possibly repent so devoutly); some have been reminded of West German Chancellor Willy Brandt’s “Warsaw kneeling”; and others have seen Christian forgiveness.

Art naturally permits multiple interpretations. For the prosecutor to put forward baseless accusations while completely unfamiliar with contemporary art, relying on ideological prejudice, is an act of overreach.

Although the purpose is to add to my crimes, I am still willing to emulate Jesus Christ on the cross and pray that God forgive them, because “they know not what they do.”

I would even like to thank the prosecutor for reactivating, through such an extreme method, the latent energy of this group of old works that had almost been forgotten.

At this point, it is necessary to emphasise a basic fact: avant-garde experimental art has a professional threshold, and its evaluation should properly be entrusted to art critics and scholars, rather than being politically characterised stubbornly by people without a professional background, or even used as grounds for depriving artists of their freedom through criminal punishment.

The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulate that the parties and defence counsel have the right to apply for a person with specialised knowledge to appear in court. This was precisely the reason why, at the pre-trial conference, we applied for the well-known art critic Dr Zhu Qi to appear and provide a professional opinion.

In addition, the fourth paragraph of the indictment states that I “colluded with others to transmit photographs of the above sculptures to the X platform for online dissemination … and also authorised others to use the images as a book cover.”

Regarding this accusation, I have stated repeatedly that I never authorised Mr Rong Wei of the New York bookstore Bodhi House to use the image as a cover, and expressly refused his request. I attended the awards ceremony precisely in order to discuss the matter with him in person. The testimony of Mr Rong Wei, submitted by my defence lawyer and authenticated under the Hague Convention, has fully proved my innocence.

As for the account on the X platform, it was registered by my younger brother Gao Qiang many years ago. I have never posted the images involved in this case on that platform. Gao Qiang’s recent public statement can also serve as evidence.

The indictment’s claim that I “seriously infringed upon the reputation of the former national leader and harmed the public interest of society” is entirely based on shadows and hearsay.

If these several old works from twenty years ago truly posed such a tremendous danger, why did the relevant departments take no notice at the time? Now, by imposing a heavy sentence and causing them to re-enter the international media spotlight, are they not artificially creating even more serious “harm”?

I respectfully ask Your Honour to consider several questions:

Is there any clear legal provision supporting the definition of a historical figure who has been dead for half a century as an untouchable “hero or martyr”?

As a historical and public figure, do his portrait and privacy rights take precedence over the public’s artistic expression and historical evaluation?

Is a special-type star actor (Gu Yue) legally equivalent to the leader whom he portrayed?

In all modern civilised countries, public power must be subject to public supervision and criticism, naturally including criticism in artistic form.

Emphasising “governing the country according to law” domestically and advocating the “building of a community with a shared future for humanity” internationally are the grand visions of the country today. If the rule of law cannot genuinely be implemented domestically, the international vision cannot be realised.

Although I have lived overseas for many years, I still yearn for my motherland to achieve genuine rule of law.

Governing the country according to law means equality before the law. Yet because the prosecution considers the “level of the heroes and martyrs involved in this case to be relatively high” (in the words of Prosecutor Li Yi), it intends to break with the usual sentencing practice of less than one year in similar cases and impose the maximum sentence of three years on me. This plainly violates the principle of legal equality.

Even putting that aside, artistic reflection on the Cultural Revolution concerning a historical figure who committed serious historical mistakes during his lifetime (such as launching the Cultural Revolution) should never be dealt with through criminal punishment.

During the period of “three submissions and two returns” in this case, Prosecutor Li Yi, who was responsible for the case, told my defence lawyer that the case was of a high level and that he could not decide the matter himself and needed to request instructions. He nevertheless hinted that if the sentence were around one and a half years, he recommended that I accept “confession and acceptance of punishment.”

At the urging of my lawyer and family, and considering that I had already been imprisoned for more than half a year, was elderly and frail, and had a young child urgently in need of my company, I reluctantly stated that although I believed myself innocent, I could accept “confession and acceptance of punishment” in order to reunite with my family as soon as possible, provided that I was sentenced according to the standards applied in similar cases in the past (approximately one year). Li Yi sincerely promised at the time to report this.

However, several days later, Prosecutor’s Assistant Sun Yang suddenly announced to me that “the sentence for you is three years.” When I asked how the leniency policy for confession and acceptance of punishment was reflected, she shouted irrationally: “Confession and acceptance of punishment means three years! If you do not confess, the sentence will be even longer!”

It shocked me deeply that the statutory sentences and leniency policies of a country could be interpreted and manipulated so crudely.

To be honest, I am nearly seventy. In my life I have suffered the hardship of the Great Famine, endured the humiliation of the Cultural Revolution, performed hard labour, taken risks, loved and suffered, and I feel that my life can be considered complete.

If I were not thinking of my six- or seven-year-old child praying and crying day and night for God to let his father come home, and if I could bear to see my children suffer again the loss of a father that I experienced in my childhood, then, personally, what would it matter if I spent several more years in prison for upholding my convictions?

I was willing to bow before my young child and compromise once, reluctantly and against my conscience, but the prosecution did not give me that opportunity — so be it! Spending two more years in prison in order to preserve my lifelong innocence and conscience is worth it!

In this era filled with taboos, cowardice has always tormented the hearts of everyone who possesses a conscience. Now I have finally been able to “make up the lesson of going to prison,” and I will no longer feel inexplicably ashamed about it.

In essence, this case is not an ordinary criminal case, but a political case like the “Crow Terrace Poetry Case” suffered by Su Dongpo.

If the court sentences an innocent artist to prison, or even imposes the maximum penalty, this will not only fail to demonstrate the dignity of the law, but will instead bring shame upon the country’s image of “governing the country according to law,” and may even set the disastrous precedent for a modern Chinese “art prison” in the twenty-first century.

This is absolutely not a historical stigma that the judge of this court would wish to bear.

Finally, it must be emphasised that the works involved in this case were created against a historical background in which “reflection on the Cultural Revolution” was being advocated from the top down. At that time, Ba Jin called for the establishment of a “Cultural Revolution Museum,” and Premier Wen Jiabao repeatedly warned against a return of the Cultural Revolution. These works were inevitable products of that particular historical period, which is also why no campaign was launched against them at the time.

In conclusion, the prosecution’s accusations are based on subjective conjecture and ideological prejudice and seriously violate the basic spirit that “whatever is not prohibited by law is permitted.” I therefore respectfully ask Your Honour to examine the matter with insight and deliver a just judgment.

Please forgive me for taking up so much time reading this lengthy statement.

I have done so not only so that I may be released as soon as possible, but also so that other artists will no longer be accused and imprisoned for similar free expression, and, even more, so that all my fellow citizens may possess freedom from fear in the true sense of the rule of law.

Here, I would like to borrow the famous words of Mr Hu Shi: “To fight for your individual freedom is to fight for freedom for the country!”

As for the final judgment, I will follow the example of the sage Socrates and calmly accept the arrangements of fate.

Please allow me to end my statement with a simple prayer in the Christian manner:

Merciful Heavenly Father, please hear the cry of an innocent prisoner and artist; may the Lord Jesus Christ grant special grace and have mercy on and comfort my young children; and I beseech the Lord to have mercy on my fellow citizens who, like me, are suffering; may the Lord forgive us our debts and sins, and may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven, forever.

Amen!

Thank you, everyone!

Respectfully submitted by the defendant, Gao Shen

Written on 28 August 2025 Revised on 28 March 2026