If there is a structure to knowledge, then there must be a growth of knowledge. Knowledge has now became the extension of a complex function of artificial intelligence; its growth has far exceeded what anyone can tackle alone in his lifetime, so inevitably the monumental edifice of knowledge has to be institutionalised in order to maintain its function and growth.

The problem we face today is a result of the institutional knowledge; there is a lack of coordination between what has been created, and what remains to be done with that which we have created, and the purpose of its creation.

If we believe in objective knowledge, then we must try to understand the nature of its growth. If the tree of knowledge is not just an artificial hypothesis, and can serve as a focal point to pursuit knowledge, then this tree should grow in parallel to our attempts to reach its limit. More often then not we lose our perspective among the net of tree branches.

The visible and the invisible inevitably constitute the being of the whole; to see the invisible we must perceive it with our notion, and this notion often gets translated into the visible world of function.

Knowledge lies beyond the visible: symbols, icons and signs are metaphysical indications of the existence of that which lies beyond.

Expressions in art often arise as intuitive responses to ones agony caused by the complex bureaucracy of the world's intelligence. It is an intelligence used to serve one's end, to eniarge one's power economically and militarily, ultimate leading to the neglect of humanitarian issues.

Class struggle justifies itself through the suffering of suppressed groups; their starvation and their suffering are the manifestation of this tragedy. The acceptance of inequality would not stop until this problem rolls like a rock to the very end. Under the circumstance, artistic expressions of any form are rarely capable of solving problems except for arousing sympathy; history shows that little has been achieved through this mean.

Understanding the structure and the power of knowledge is the only way to bring one to the negotiating table and to tackle the issue. True humanity is the only worthy path leading to utopia and enlightenment; it is not by race consciousness, not through contribution of man-power to serve a technological super-power. If works of art have more function than decorating one's living quarter, then they should let us enjoy their beauty while leading us to go beyond to the causes of tragedy and sorrow.

​

Christopher Ku 1999
 

​

​

知識被伸展為各種人類生存的智能工具。假設知識是個有形體的結構，而且是在擴大著的，那麼，一個龐大的組織必須有系統地去維持，而非一個人的能力所能把持，然而組織性的智能運用，在運作中卻無法完全實踐適當客觀之用途。

如果我們能有客觀的知識概念，那麼我們必會知道我們並非在知識中追求知識為目的，而是須要相互明暸彼此作用間之關係，否則我們只會盲目地追求知識而迷失。

往往看不見的事物我們必須先有共識始能見諸於世，而形與識是一個不可分離的共體。

共識往往為肉眼所不能視察之物，一切符號、標誌與指示的存在都是為了顯示超越視野以外之事物。

情感在藝術中的表達往往無法改變歷史，更難以於複雜的經濟、政治的結構中發揮作用。人類間不少痛楚反因知識之濫用而引發。
人類間之界別與等級已被飢荒及戰亂中的不平等顯露見證。受難並非是改變命的途徑，因此表現主義所提供的發洩與憐憫也是無補於事的。

唯有共同的共識，對知識及智能的了解及運作，才讓人類真正的共同體可有平等商討之餘地。以共存體制建立智能社會為目的反而不能解決種族與階級之問題。

如藝術能有大於裝飾性之功能，在欣賞藝術之餘，我們或許可以超越美感去了解人類悲劇之由來。

​

谷敏昭 1999

​

​