Abstract

The author tries to estimate the memorial function of art. Our material productions enable practical life and also contribute to maintain our existence. They can incarnate our memory of life. Especially, so-called monument and work of art insist on sensible representations of memory. They can thus create our collective life, as though they are different in that the former relates to the geographical place while the latter requires the relative independence of its formal structure. But the history of institution shows another issue. As Riegl clarified, the 19th century has created "Historical monument" and mass adoration of oldness. Institutional monument enlarges its boundary in every time, space and category, and has lost memorial function. Nonetheless the aesthetic value is required, because monument is necessarily present one. Today's monument is officially too idealized and in public too sensational. From the time when the publishing replaced the building monument in the society, our monuments cannot be properly monument but its caricature. If artistic activity aims to recreate collective life, it must throw out its static model of monument and become a temporal collaboration in local area