Robert Adam’s essay, “Does heritage dogma destroy living history?” was recently featured in the journal of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. The essay specifically questions the infallibility of the Venice and Krakow Charters which set down the principles that guide our management of the historic environment. Adam argues that whilst these contain much useful guidance, modernist philosophy has gradually infiltrated conservation practises and particularly its charters, potentially damaging the relationship between our built heritage and the community.

Adam warns that many definitions within these charters have become increasingly open, creating the need for the ‘professional’ or ‘expert,’ not the community, to identify what should be regarded worthy of classification as ‘heritage’ or a ‘monument’ within our built environment. Similarly he questions the obsession with ‘authenticity’ prevalent within heritage control, and the insistence that restoration or repair should be completely distinguishable from the original building or place. Adam highlights the fact that our most treasured and iconic pieces of heritage are often partial reconstructions, but that this does not lessen their status or popularity. Their importance often lies in their symbolism and insistence upon authenticity can actually contradict the key objective of restoration; that is to restore the wholeness of the original work of art so that it can be appreciated by the community.