AUTHENTICITY 30 YEARS LATER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 1994 NARA CONFERENCE

The Ukrainian experience of architectural heritage losses caused by war raises a fundamental question for the professional community: what exactly should be preserved when reconstructing destroyed heritage – the material, the image, the function, or the meaning? In this context, the concept of authenticity becomes critical, going beyond a purely theoretical category and turning into an essential decision-making tool in restoration, reconstruction, and reproduction. The aim of the study is to determine whether the Nara Document represented a paradigmatic shift in attitudes toward heritage or merely formalized an already existing plurality of interpretations. Methodologically, the research relies on contextual, discursive, and comparative analysis, as well as a meta-analysis of Michael S. Falser’s text, which reconstructs the main vectors of debate at the Nara Conference. The focus is on current challenges, analysed through materials from the 2024 conferences in Thessaloniki and Tokyo, where the tension between flexibility and the need for methodological clarity was highlighted, against the backdrop of the continued absence of a single internationally recognised methodology for assessing authenticity. The article explores how authenticity operates not only in normative documents but also in decision-making practices, the formation of local policies, and institutional procedures that directly affect the fate of heritage sites. It is concluded that the Nara Document did not provide a fixed definition of authenticity but changed its philosophical framework: authenticity is now understood as the result of dialogue between cultures, practices, and communities – a dialogue that requires not only remembering but also rethinking in the face of contemporary challenges, ethical responsibility, and the transformative potential of heritage.