Authenticity between pure theory and practical application – the barrier of words

The theory on authenticity can generate disputes depending to the geographical and cultural space of those who define this concept. It seems, however, that this ideological dispute (see the Petzet-Araoz dialogue), tends to remain an abstraction related to the material and immaterial, ignoring some pragmatic elements that are at the root of the cultural misunderstandings related to the authenticity of heritage. I have selected three of them that I consider to be essential.

The first one is a linguistic component, in the context of the present prevalence of the English language over the French language (in which Venice Charter was conceived). The second aspect is related to the analysis criteria applied to the cultural models of today and not to those that were valid at the time when the assessed heritage elements were conceived. The third derives from the distinct character of the assessment of built heritage compared to the assessment of the movable or immaterial one.

The hypothesis of this article is that the word “authenticity” itself is the one at the root of the above mentioned cultural disputes and that it should be more often be replaced by “genuineness”.