Do We Need Artists?

Defendant's closing statement

Honourable judge and jury,

Alfred Adler, one of the founding fathers of modern psychoanalysis, tells us that an individual's level of social interest is key to his or her success in solving the problems of life, from forming meaningful relationships to achieving promotion in the workplace. In short, the meaning of one's life lies in its meaning to others.

After this court trial, we can clearly identify the problem of artists: they are cocooned in their extremely individualistic mentality, and lost within their demands on society, which are full of self-contradiction. In the end, artists have still not proven their social interest to us.

I will state it again: artists' value is already adequately validated by society. I seek the court's assessment and judgment to confirm my proposition.

From the claimant's statement and the testimonies of her witnesses, we hear that artists cry for absolute autonomy, yet complain about not being included in the welfare system. They claim that income does not reflect a person's real value, yet demand economic reward. They want to be acknowledged by the public, yet refuse to please the audience. They criticise the market, they criticise the authorities, they refuse to be judged within any framework of society, yet cry out for society's validation. They negate every existing framework, but fail to construct a new one.

As the artist stated in her own opening statement, artists are no exception from society. But they forget that to gain any reward from a game, you must first obey its rules. That is why, in the end, the claimant's own witness, Joseph, had to admit: if an artist fails in both market value and institutional recognition, they fail.

Artists are still waiting for people to admire their works like treasures in an ivory tower. But what is there to admire? Behind the rhetorical words packed around the artworks, what is inside is meaningless and boring. Art becomes a game circulating within the art community, one that makes artists and their peers feel superior to others. Yet in the end, they still have to translate recognition from the art community into commercial profit, as their own witness Joseph testified: "Recognition helps artists sell their work."

I am not claiming that artists have not tried to engage with the important issues of society, but I am sorry, they have failed. Their ideas and practices are not as profound as philosophers', not as influential as politicians', not as constructive as scientists'; and at the same time, they have even begun to lose their own language, the artistic language. By becoming more and more like activists and philosophers, their identity as artists is dissolving. That is why it is difficult for society to identify artists' roles and recognise their value. That is why artists get lost in every valuing framework.

My suggestion to artists is this: adapt your work and yourselves to what society needs; do not ask society to adapt to you. Artists, open your eyes and see what is happening outside your bubble. Driven by technology and business, the development of the world has left you far behind in many ways. Video game designers and IT engineers have started to create the Metaverse, an imaginative world. That is what artists wish to do, but fail to do. Astronauts and businessmen are expanding our living space into the universe. Artificial intelligence will release more and more people from routine work, so that people will create by themselves.

Then, honourable judge and jury, do we need artists? Thank you!

Claimant's closing statement

Honourable judge and jury,

The defendant began by quoting the psychoanalyst Adler. I will also share a quote, from the philosopher Georg Simmel: the souls of people who care about inner salvation are always incompatible with modern life.

The defendant defends the rules and valuing system of reality, whereas I speak for the humanity and subjectivity trapped in this reality.

The reality the defendant describes is one in which market value is the only ruler that truly measures the value of everything and everyone; what cannot be measured by market value has no value; and to achieve market value, you must produce things or services that people will consume. To be consumed, artists' work must be easily accessible, pleasing, entertaining, decorative. If artists fail to adapt to this reality, then artists have no value to society.

Honourable judge and jury, if you support the reality the defendant claims, and the logic behind it, then the judgment imposed on artists also applies to you, whether you are a chef, a scientist, a journalist, a teacher, or a politician. But are your values fully recognised in this reality?

Therefore I urge you to acknowledge that artists' value is not adequately validated by society.

We used to carry more diverse and complex values inside each of us. In the beginning, we knew that money was the most efficient measure, but not the only one; yet the voice of our inner values grew weaker and weaker, until it was almost completely drowned out by the sound of capital. More and more, we accept the simplified version of value: no market value means no social value. We judge others this way and are judged the same way; in the end we even judge ourselves, until our sense of self-worth grows more and more confused. We hear the inner voice of resistance, but bow to the supreme power of capitalistic judgment. As the witness Olve testified: it's not fair, but that's life.

From that sigh it is already clear: it is not only artists' value that fails to be fairly validated today; the value of people across professions also fails to be fairly reflected in the current valuing system.

The defendant tells you: to prove your value, you must conform to authority, serve the needs of the majority, and please your clients; otherwise you fail. But the artist tells you: the value of a person should not be justified by money, recognition, or popularity. As the witness Joseph told us: "Art justifies individual existence from within oneself, without measuring the impact on others."

Rather than following the defendant's logic, I urge you to see what systemic resistance the position of the artist represents within capitalist society. Artists negate this system, and call on everyone to stay alert to the system that judges us. To be critical and to negate is precisely the value of artists to society. To negate the current mechanism is to shed light on the humanity and subjectivity suppressed by the judging power. To negate is the first step towards awareness, and thereafter towards social change. And this change is far more difficult than the development of technology.

The defendant has depicted a brave new world that technology is leading us towards. Without artists' criticism and negation, we may arrive there faster, at a world of more convenient life, fancier experiences, perhaps even life on another planet. But if we still judge others and ourselves by the current value system, and are not even able to accept our true emotions and humanity, what is the point of living in a brave new world? Thank you!