China Jails Artist Gao Zhen for Sculptures Made Years Before the Law Existed
Chinese artist Gao Zhen was sentenced to three years in prison on 25 August 2026 after being convicted of slandering China's "heroes and martyrs" in a secret one-day trial at the Sanhe city people's court in Hebei province (The Guardian; New York Times via Facebook). Two of his relatives were permitted to attend the verdict hearing. Gao, 70, is a Chinese citizen and US permanent resident.
The artworks central to the prosecution were satirical sculptures created roughly 15 years before the trial, around 2010 (Hyperallergic). Among his best-known pieces is one depicting Mao Zedong kneeling and another portraying a firing squad of seven Mao statues pointing rifles at Jesus. Gao produced the body of work in question over decades of collaboration with his younger brother, Gao Qiang, operating as the Gao brothers (The Guardian).
China's law banning defamation of its heroes and martyrs came into force in March 2018, meaning the sculptures predated the statute by roughly eight years (The Guardian). The human rights monitoring network Weiquanwang reported that Gao was sentenced for "infringing the reputation and honour of heroes and martyrs" (The Guardian). Human Rights Watch confirmed that Chinese authorities accused Gao of violating that crime for sculptures satirically depicting Mao, created more than a decade earlier (HRW).
Gao was detained on 26 August 2024 after returning to China with his wife, Zhao Yaliang, and their young son. Police subsequently raided his studio near Beijing. According to Weiquanwang, Gao's studio and property were sealed and his friends and supporters were silenced. His wife and son have been unable to leave China since his detention nearly two years ago (The Guardian).
The trial itself was held in secret and received almost no coverage inside China. The BBC reported that the few domestic reports that did appear focused mainly on his arrest rather than the proceedings (BBC).
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) expressed concern in April 2026 that Gao's case involves retroactive application of criminal law — that is, prosecuting someone under a law that did not exist when the alleged act took place — and the use of criminal sanctions to punish artistic expression (OHCHR). Amnesty International's China director Sarah Brooks said the decision to impose the maximum three-year term illustrated the authorities' determination to deter independent artistic expression (The Guardian). Human Rights Watch had earlier called on China to release Gao, stating he was unjustly charged (HRW), and Amnesty launched an urgent action campaign for his release in December 2024 (Amnesty International).
The broader context here is a legal framework that has steadily expanded the perimeter of prohibited expression in China. The heroes and martyrs statute, in force since March 2018, criminalises what the state defines as defamation of figures it designates as politically sacrosanct. Gao's case pushes that framework into new terrain on at least two fronts. First, it applies the law to works created years before the statute existed, raising the retroactivity concern the OHCHR flagged. Second, it extends criminal liability to artistic output produced abroad and displayed internationally, then used as the basis for prosecution when the artist enters Chinese jurisdiction.
For those tracking China's use of criminal law to manage cultural and political discourse, the case establishes that the heroes and martyrs statute is not limited to contemporaneous speech or online commentary. Sculptures cast years before the law existed can be retroactively reclassified as criminal acts. The three-year sentence, the maximum available, signals a prosecutorial posture aimed at deterrence rather than proportionality, as Brooks noted. The effective exit ban on Gao's wife and young son adds a dimension of family coercion that has appeared in other cases involving Chinese nationals with foreign residency.
Gao's status as a US permanent resident introduces a diplomatic layer, though the verified facts do not indicate any formal US government response. The silence of domestic media coverage, as reported by the BBC, further narrows the space for public scrutiny of how the statute is applied in practice.
