The Update of Fundamental Texts Such as the Venice Charter of 1964 for the Training of Students and Professionals in the Conservation of Natural and Cultural Heritage

The Update of Fundamental Texts Such as the Venice Charter of 1964 for the Training of Students and Professionals in the Conservation of Natural and Cultural Heritage

Andres Armando Sanchez Hernandez

Faculty of Architecture, Benemerita Autonomous University of Puebla, Mexico

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.907000427

Received: 06 July 2025; Accepted: 12 July 2025; Published: 21 August 2025

INTRODUCTION

The foundation of the training in the specialty of cultural heritage conservation, which was previously only viewed as monuments and their surroundings, must be updated through a series of reflections that allow academic and professional fields to develop theoretical and practical activities to evaluate and intervene in groups, monuments, and sites in urban and rural areas; recognizing in them historical values, identity, and collective memory. In this context, there have long been several texts that provide recommendations applicable to properties inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), established in 1972 based on the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage signed in Paris by UNESCO, as well as to those that are not listed but have important values. One of those doctrinal texts is the Venice Charter of 1964, which contains internationally relevant recommendations.

One of those doctrinal texts is the Venice Charter of 1964, which contains internationally relevant recommendations applicable to different types of heritage in various countries. This text was developed through ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites), a ‘Category A’ organization of UNESCO in 2024, marking the 60th anniversary of its drafting in 2024, for which several events were held in many countries.

It is essential to reflect on their contributions and the new horizons in light of new theoretical and practical challenges for the conservation of heritage, but it is necessary to add an epistemological analysis that contextualizes other knowledge. In that perseverance, new challenges have arisen that highlight the need to understand what is associated with the values that require greater depth and clarity in the discourse and explanation that have remained general, making it necessary to adapt to the specific.

The methodology is based on a review of the contents and the way they have been defined over the last few years, which allows us to see that they have limits and particular approaches that need to be organized to understand the current conditions, especially by revisiting certain definitions, temporality, and content. Aspects that enable analysis of the contents, and the moment of rupture or reflection on their viability, in order to apply methodologies, or levels of scientific inquiry. This was established while reviewing the aspects addressed in the Venice Charter, and the topics that have remained as references, but have already been surpassed in light of the complexity of studies and advances in the field of valuation, interpretation, and discussions about terminology, definitions of conservation, and other interventions.

The findings allow for the updating of discourses and the way one should act and reflect theoretically on the principles, criteria, and actions of heritage conservation in specialized fields such as master’s degrees in architecture, with a specialization in heritage conservation, as well as in other related areas. Additionally, it helps to understand the overcome aspects and the new directions of the topics and subtopics. The conclusions provide a balance of the contributions and theoretical advances on the topics and subtopics addressed, as well as the directions that have been taken or are required for conservation. Thus, it clarifies the role of the recommendations issued by these organizations and the current state subject to critique and epistemological arguments.

Epistemological Argumentation To understand the theory and practice of the conservation of cultural heritage and the training of its specialists, it is essential to be interdisciplinary and to have epistemology, which allows us to analyze texts, and in this case the Venice Charter, starting from reflections like those of Foucault (1978) paraphrasing guiding ideas: to doubt and reflect in order to be de-subjectified; steering us towards critical thinking. Then, after understanding definitions through a rupture of knowledge, an epistemological break, whose results lead towards a genetic epistemological approach of Piaget (1950) explaining that thought is constructed from context, and the way one interacts with arguments that allow identifying points of inflection and possibilities for insertion. In that framework, an objective interpretation is sought, understanding empirical processes, disciplinary issues, cognitive processes, and the object-subject relationship.

In this framework, an objective interpretation is sought by understanding empirical processes, disciplinary issues, cognitive processes, the object-subject relationship, and the subject’s context to comprehend the intrinsic values of the cultural object and the context in which it is situated.

In this sense, the Venice Charter focuses on monuments, but this idea has been expanded, and now it starts from the idea of the documentary value of natural and cultural assets. Let us cite authors who relate monuments and heritage as documents, such as Foucault (1969) and Chanfón (1994) regarding monuments, and Sánchez (2022) regarding landscapes. It is about starting from the particularities of social, historical, physical-geographical, urban or rural contexts, or within what is legally protected, such as historical centers according to the legislation of each country, sites with interconnected values within or as a set or zone; understanding that the interpretation of documentary value is subject to objective and subjective readings.

The participation of all sciences, announced in the original text of the Venice Charter, is already a reality; we have seen the participation of scientific disciplines, ranging from the exact sciences, natural sciences, and social sciences, with their respective derivations. Looking towards the present and the future, the use of new technological tools for technical work is essential. Ricoeur (2002) stated: “the common quality of human experience, marked, articulated, and clarified by the act of narrating in all its forms, is its temporal character” (p.16). Nevertheless, its applicability is marked as an experience that evolves in response to the changing nature of times, culture, and processes of understanding reality; despite this, there is some information that continues amidst change and evolution of the complex.

On the other hand, criticism allows for judgments regarding the validity or obsolescence of the topics addressed to channel the content towards a theoretical proposal and to construct new explanations about the issues, levels, and criteria of intervention regarding the values of cultural heritage and their different relationships or associations after 60 years of being written. Casuso and Serrano (2018) stated: “critical theory is unthinkable, not even epistemologically, without referring to practice.” (p.16). The practice is governed by the lexicon produced and analyzed from theory, which has methodological connotations, then in the types of intervention and the traditional or contemporary techniques to be implemented. Criticism viewed from epistemology is the critical use of theory in the horizons of reason as mentioned by Zemelman, but more than about the theory, it is about its relevance and permanence in the field of cultural heritage in the present, moving towards the future. Retamozo (2011), who analyzed Zemelman, highlights the following points about his work related to his criticism from the social reality, the problem of the subject, and the ways of constructing knowledge.

Criticism has been used as a definition in the field of restoration from Carbonara’s perspective, debating the idea of restoration’s preference for rehabilitation, which since the 1972 Paris Convention presents types of interventions, including rehabilitation, highlighting its importance and the need to find its limits and levels of technical understanding, thereby looking at the difference between the two.

National protection and international protection of cultural and natural heritage. Article 4 Each of the States Parties to this Convention recognizes that the obligation to identify, protect, conserve, rehabilitate, and transmit to future generations the cultural and natural heritage situated in its territory primarily falls upon it. It will endeavor to act for this purpose by its own efforts and to the maximum of the resources available to it, and when appropriate, through the international assistance and cooperation from which it can benefit, especially in the financial, artistic, scientific, and technical aspects.

All of this has allowed us to understand that it is subject to interpretation; an aspect that, in light of the multiple case study works and reflections on its application, has shown that some of the definitions, concepts, and foundations for conservation have been surpassed, but have been a very important guide, through simple texts to understand the values and even types and levels of intervention applicable to the different areas of the ensembles, sites of various levels and relations, including mixed sites, and specificities such as historical centers, historic gardens, and even cultural landscapes.

Similarly, in a dialogue between traditional techniques and the contemporary, it is clearly, in many cases, a mark of the time. However, it poses a great challenge to have the correct participation of specialists from the wide range of particularities and studies. In that context, it can be understood that various actions on monuments and their surroundings, in a current context, are subject to complementing or clarifying the unavoidable relationship to values of the natural and cultural; focusing on being recognized as natural resources. Resources considered as the wealth found in ecosystems and environments where humans have not participated, but are part of the planet’s habitat, along with its flora and fauna; being renewable and non-renewable. For example, regarding a cultural resource, the intervention must be very careful to protect authenticity, quality of materials, among other values; in that context, the intervention of buildings such as the Parthenon in Athens, Greece must be exceptionally careful to safeguard the historical, archaeological, symbolic, and generally documentary values of the heritage. (See image 1)

Image 1. Intervention to protect the historical, archaeological, symbolic values; documentary heritage, cultural resources in the Parthenon, in Athens. Source: Photo, AASH/2018.

A biocultural heritage, often immersed in problems it faces today such as disasters, lack of roots, or external actions like climate change, or the very effects of solar explosions, rain, etc.; which are summarized in phenomena such as urban heat islands or floods. Therefore, the expansion of the contents of the Venice Charter of 1964 in light of new theoretical and practical challenges must emphasize the importance of addressing the aforementioned problems in the face of the need for capturing water to aquifers, implementation of vegetation in many places, such as Tepeaca, Puebla, Mexico, of which it lacks. (See image 2)

Image 2. Historical set in Tepeaca, Puebla, Mexico. Source: AASH/2020

The idea of a monument, now viewed as built heritage in the current framework of sustainability, allows us to see that present societies can meet their needs without compromising those of future generations. For example, we see that some complexes are related to the natural and the built, as part of a site; in the following image, we see a site of industrial origin: the hydroelectric plant of Nuevo Necaxa, in the Mexican state of Puebla, Mexico. (See image 3)

Image 3. Section view of the hydroelectric plant. Source: Photo, AASH/2021

The interpretation of values and the relationship between the tangible and the intangible, which today is more related to sites and sets, as well as in urban and rural contexts, rather than as a general environment. Frondizi (1978) reflected on the idea of value: “Values are not things, nor elements, nor objects, but rather properties, sui generis qualities, that certain objects called goods possess” (p.17). Thus, we can understand that the conditions of cultural objects and the way they are intervened emphasize the importance of their value, or their values based on how they are interpreted by the custodians. The intangible, such as customs, traditions, and knowledge associated with the built environment, and the care of their values in the face of intervention, are interrelated with tangible or material values.

Likewise, the values that can be identified within territories, districts, or regions, referred to as the environment exposed in the original text, can now be understood as part of a series of explainable, classifiable, and comprehensible phenomena in the environment, such as climate change; and social issues, determined by disasters and conflicts that threaten the legacy and the need for broader, updated arguments to understand the values, problems, and the correct actions to protect their intrinsic values that reflect a historical significance and the extrinsic values as added values acquired over time, but placing it within multiple challenges for society.

In the cultural object, different levels can coexist, depending on the type and level of alteration or deterioration, and perhaps as different actions ranging from preventive intervention to more extensive intervention. On the other hand, although the environment can be natural and cultural, explicitly with other singularities within the site, more than a cultural landscape, which is something external, the urban or rural site more clearly expresses the idea of what the whole reflects in its dialogue in both material and immaterial aspects, which are often complementary.

The use of the Venice Charter, immersed in concepts and levels from many areas of what is valuable as monumental value and the environment, although not explicitly stated, can be applied to archaeology. In that context, both the definitions and levels of intervention, as well as restoration and some conservation criteria like anastylosis, or unique reconstruction, which is favorable for monuments and fundamental principles such as respect for authenticity, period marks, avoiding historical falsifications, and respect for the environment express a certain basic level. Therefore, we find debates about their particularities and limits, as well as the areas to which they are related, seen as responses to new theoretical and practical challenges for heritage conservation.

The importance of this text is contextualized within a series of topics associated with the idea of heritage in light of the registration of new criteria on the list of cultural heritage assets, as was the case with the Roberto Burle Marx Site in 2021, which included a series of buildings from various periods and, above all, the landscape laboratory with endemic plants, a place that goes beyond a mere landscape by incorporating interior elements such as collections and design. After registering a series of aspects in specific buildings, historical center groups, and natural and cultural landscapes documented by UNESCO. In addition to this, the influence policies of the UN (United Nations), and the 2030 Agenda for sustainability, which have resulted in different agendas in countries, often with very general topics that need to be tailored to each reality. Presenting different levels to improve the quality of life, the environment, and urban as well as rural development from the perspective of sustainability. Looking at the conditions of what constitutes the horizon and development of urban and rural paradigms, as well as the preservation of heritage from a more complex, inclusive idea, in both modest places and large cities where the presence of the valuable is irrefutable.

The interpretation of what is valuable, the problems and possible interventions, which have limits in their use, as well as a complex panorama, for example, discussions and reviews by various authors and definitions of interventions in view of the large number of them. These definitions need to be analyzed to reach a balance of complexity and the new horizons that consider monuments or built structures, more than just heritage, as cultural resources in many areas and their own interventions from the perspective of sites or groups.

Now, in the face of the evolution situation and the great challenges society is facing, the professionals dedicated to such purposes, as well as the different values and needs to act on the cultural legacy, it is necessary to approach the topics and subtopics associated with the Venice Charter of 1964, making them understandable despite their complexity and subjective perspectives, to create a turning point in their understanding, a rupture, and to have a theoretical corpus in light of new global scenarios and the particularities of each case, cultural processes, and requirements for their conservation and intervention with definitions, conservation criteria, types, and levels of intervention. One of them, expressly defined in the Venice Charter, has been restoration; however, although for many authors or professionals trained in such specialization it can be seen in a context of different authors, challenges, and particularities of the intervention, which has limits, aiming towards other types of actions and levels of the technical.

The Venice Charter and Interpretation A first step for its interpretation is to group the information presented in the aforementioned text by content. It can be understood that there are definitions such as conservation, restoration, and anastylosis as the only reconstruction; however, throughout a series of practical actions, it has been observed that many of them cease to be viewed as restoration and instead become reconstructions, many of them like Notre Dame, Paris (2024), which left the issue of authenticity to become a historical reconstruction-restoration or a neo-Gothic postmodern one. In that sense, it can be understood that reconstruction could be considered valid once a series of fundamental principles and criteria of conservation as stated in the Venice Charter are used.

The interpretation according to some authors takes on particularities in the way of identifying some epistemic level in the topics or concepts put forth; in many cases, they adopt explanatory epistemological approaches: Sánchez (2003) referring to the fundamental concepts of philosophy: essence, existence, and substance (p. 47). The essence in architecture is space, so the architectural solution is conditioned, since the Romans and the triad: venustas, firmitas, and utilitas defined by form, meanings, venustas, and firmitas, resistance, but above all to solve utilitas, the space. Existence is related to materialized reality based on its historicity, containing both historicity and temporality, and is defined as the appropriation of social, religious, aesthetic reality, etc. Just as substance is that which exists by itself, it is mentioned as a complement in the same Charter of Venice of 1964 when referring to authentic substance as the goal of restoration and conservation. On the other hand, Rodríguez (1997) considered, rather identified various ways in which a subject appropriates reality, presenting the following levels of epistemic universe: phenomenological-existential, rationalist-scientific formalist, empirical intellectualist, empirical utilitarian, organic mythical, aesthetic romantic, voluntarist (libertarian); all of which form an integral epistemology.

Therefore, the archaeological-documentary value of the building or complex cannot be subject to aesthetic care or hypothetical integrity. Looking at the idea of value in very broad heritage terms, for example: Riegl (1987), the value of antiquity, the value of the historical, the artistic value, etc., among the most representative. For Ballart (2007), historical and archaeological heritage: use value. Therefore, the protection of the objective sources of historical knowledge, recalling the Mexican Chanfón (1990), should be seen through the idea of the document value of the monument, and the landscape as we established in 2022, the cultural landscape, whether urban or rural, has a documentary value. In other disciplines, it contains effects; for anthropology or sociology: identity, Mülher (1998); relating them to their values, they are decoded, recoded, or re-signified, Sánchez (2003); Choay (1992[2007]) from memory and time.

Restoration, as an exceptional intervention, is a process of greater intervention that has been defined by various authors, academies, or organizations with many interpretations. From the Venice Charter, it is understood that it ends where the hypothesis begins, aspects to which López (2014) stated in his 50 years of work that a current reflection was not integrated, and therefore it continued to be left adrift in its definition and understanding. In that effort, the idea of restoration that authors like Carbonara (1996) defend against the use of rehabilitation presents another problem in its understanding, as both can coexist, having theoretical-conceptual and even technical limits. When reviewing the existing definitions of restoration by various authors and contexts, we see the existence of processes that restoration has undergone, from stylistic, historical, scientific, critical, and recently objective restoration (González, 1999), and relativistic or relative restoration (Sánchez, 2003). In this context, the presence of many derivations and interpretations is analyzed, and therefore, many of the appellations that the original definition has acquired since the first actions cannot be dismissed, which means that it cannot be ignored that it is one of the interventions subject to controversies, criteria, and levels of understanding of its values and problems, considering interpretations and the level of intervention and the careful or meticulous action on material and immaterial levels that define the limits, and the lexical association to define them.

It can be understood that the levels of intervention: rehabilitation, restoration, etc., that are defined, are not subject to the same context that motivates the action, so it can be said that it is a circumstantial action or issue that motivates a certain activity, a circumstantial restoration. In this sense, one cannot talk about a social intervention aimed at safeguarding or protecting from identity and against the physical conditions of alteration or deterioration of a cultural asset; in contrast to a post-traumatic intervention from a disaster such as an earthquake, fire, etc.

From the original Venice Charter, the general state of the issue at hand in light of such an evolutionary situation reveals great challenges facing society and professionals, given the many definitions and their limits, for example, in restoration, leading towards other types of actions. One of these was expressed in the Venice Charter: where the hypothesis ends, restoration begins, a strong statement to avoid reconstruction based on false historical ideas or falsifying history, as mentioned by Zunzunegui (2023). Below (see table 1), some definitions of restoration are analyzed, appreciating the variety of authors and approaches:

Table 1. Definitions of restoration by various authors. Source, cited.

Restoration has been defined by Riegl (1987) regarding the asset with historical value; therefore, it safeguards the historical instance. Viñas, S. (2010) did not commit to defining it but rather cited several brief definitions, including a paragraph from Article 9 of the Venice Charter. On the other hand, González V. (1993) expressed:

We find ourselves once again faced with one of the most controversial terms, used in a variety of ways in both theoretical debate and practical intervention; we employ the word “restoration” to designate the operations of “direct intervention on a work of art, whose purpose is the restitution or improvement of the “legibility” of its image or the restoration of its “potential unity” if it has deteriorated or been lost, so that the work of art continues to exist as an object capable of provoking aesthetic experiences, as long as these operations are possible without incurring in “alterations” or “falsifications” of its documentary nature. In that sense, characteristic operations of “restoration” include the “reintegration of gaps, the cleaning of the image, or the removal of added elements deemed harmful to the physical or aesthetic integrity of the work of art.Currently, “style restorations” are discarded as forgeries of the documentary character of the work of art. (p. 546)

The protected-intervened instances emphasized the most are for Carbonara (1996): The historical and aesthetic instance; however, we can understand that aesthetics are intrinsic to the pristine state, but they are relative depending on the state of conservation and levels of integrity and authenticity. Chanfón (1984): highlights the historical instance, which is a fundamental level relating to the idea of archaeological and documentary value.

The Venice Charter’s Critique of the Proposal The critique is situated within a cognitive process. Thus, starting from one of the branches of philosophy, epistemology, and the primordial nature of scientific knowledge and its understanding do not allow us to place a process within a rupture. An epistemological break that leads to recognizing the process of interpreting what is expressed about the object of study, in this case, regarding the content of the Venice Charter, and through its analysis in a current context, we can see its relevance, the elements or aspects that have not been addressed, and the way in which new themes have evolved, as well as the horizons that what has been expressed has taken. In this sense, the critique takes a fundamental role from an ethical perspective as part of the idea of what is moral and the values associated with recognizing problems and possible solutions. Based on this, one can comprehend even the aesthetic from a logic of interpretation and the levels of what is decoded. It is essential to understand that they converge on the following points: the challenge of interpreting the type of intervention and naming it appropriately, without generalizing, facing limits, horizons, and levels of intervention, which makes the use of a single one difficult for understanding the actions taken.

In the Venice Charter of 1964, it is essential to understand that its definitions, criteria for intervention, types of intervention, and, in general, fundamental principles of conservation and restoration are arguments that address the main elements within a broad and complex contextual framework. Nevertheless, the conditions of the evolution of what were monuments to sites, groups, and in general towards new directions that concretize the entire idea of the ensemble as mixed sites or cultural landscapes allow for consideration of the conditions of what have been the peculiarities of theory and practice, viewed as elements that can be located within cultural resources, often, many times related to natural resources.

On the other hand, given the great diversity of the conditions and values of heritage, even the very concept that has been proposed in light of an evolution and the need to become closer to general topics and issues that give new directions to what is another idea, not associated with hereditary purposes, but to an idea of the wealth of populations and nations, in general of humanity, as a humanistic, historical perspective and generally cultural, which is associated with the care of identities, as well as values, an axiology that goes beyond the historical, but is relatable to the quality of life. In that sense, the new theoretical and practical challenges of conserving the cultural resources of society are situated within a large number of meanings, values, themes, and contents, so the criticism as a judgment on the viability of the definitions and the topics addressed in the document must be focused on a proposal that allows seeing the cultural legacy as wealth.

The Venice Charter in the face of theoretical and practical challenges. New challenges Science and its applicability towards the conservation of cultural heritage is a reality, since the original document of the Venice Charter suggested the recommendation of its participation. In reality, the presence of interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approaches has been seen; however, it is necessary to recognize the contributions of each field and not to get lost within generalities. In this sense, we can see that the application of social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities is based on the value of human beings, among others. Science allows us to glimpse studies that lead to understanding phenomena and their possible solutions in the interest of comprehending values, such as the problems faced by cultural and natural heritage.Multiple definitions pose a challenge and a difficulty within the scope of knowing the lexicon and the best way to refer to the level and type of intervention.

Thus, we have a wide list of authors that allow us to analyze that process and the state of the art regarding conservation and the multiple intervention actions on the tangible and what can be identified in the architectural and urban realm. González-Moreno (1999) and his objective restoration, Viñas (2010) does not commit to making a robust definition proposal, Choay (2007) analyzes the European context, Ballarth (1997), from the title of his work, highlights his stance: moving from archaeological value and use value, among others, and with an epistemological perspective, the discussion of Covarrubias about landscape, referring to the lack of a broader approach when referring to it only from aesthetics, and directing it towards science, and from our authorship, relating epistemology and the conservation of built heritage, already further back, Sánchez (2003), he pointed out the need for new epistemological arguments, in which the landscape was defined as a document, in its objective quality, and the necessity to locate discourses in the subjective; as well as Landscape and Science, Sánchez (2023), as an incomprehensible relationship for its understanding. On the other hand, we can talk about the Science of Landscape as a lexical game and content, but with great complexity and meaning. At the same time, looking at how urban landscape and rural landscape are defined, in both cases with particularities and levels of relation to the biocultural.

The site level has not been defined; for example, even ICOMOS has seen it as part of its defense objectives, but there is not even recognition as a mixed site, making an explicit connection between the natural and cultural aspects of a place, site, etc., and in the future, levels of mixedness such as tangible and intangible. Historicism is an open debate to understand the values and contextual location of architectural objects or urban objects, which can be comprehended from another associated topic, temporality, both of epistemological discussion. This allows us to understand that the level of value is related more to history, as a process of chronological placement, within a contextual framework that reflects the documentary value of origin, processes, and the times and spaces that have been added to the good, from both immaterial and material aspects that give it a temporality. Another issue addressed is the aesthetics that concern some so much, However, relativism and the object-subject relationship allow us to understand that it is associated with levels of interpretation and the perception of the subject, being exposed to the references of the cognizant subject, ranging from aesthetic values to those interpreted by the social subject in the ruin, from levels of the mythical, the empirical, etc.

he new challenges focus on the new discourses related to conservation, such as sustainability, which goes beyond the explicitly defined notion from the famous text: to meet contemporary needs without compromising those of the future, subject to an understanding of the use of materials or cultural resources, maintaining cultural resources in their authenticity, historicity, and the temporality of interventions, with emphasis on the mark or hallmark of the era. Thus, contributing to the solution or remediation of environmental effects such as climate change that threaten quality of life and the environment, such as the urban heat island effect in areas with heritage.

The measured, almost negligible use of reinforced concrete (reinforced concrete) in pavements of spaces such as historical centers or sites of historical significance generates complex problems for the environment, causing albedo, among other issues that require in-depth studies from exact and applied sciences to understand through sophisticated equipment the conditions of humidity, sun exposure, etc. 

THE CONCLUSIONS

Sixty years after the drafting of this document, the criticism of the arguments expressed in the Venice Charter of 1964 clearly exposes that with the expansion of topics, subtopics, and contents of heritage, it should no longer be interpreted only as architectural or archaeological monuments but rather in a broader sense, serving as arguments for other types of heritage with documentary value, including ensembles, sites, and natural and cultural landscapes. Thus, we appreciate that the restoration discussed in the Charter, defined by multiple authors with varied interpretations, was not mentioned in the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972, which rather refers to rehabilitation. In this case, it is a topic that authors like Carbonara do not present but challenge, without making reference to the convention regarding that difference, which has currently triggered two ‘schools’ or types of interventions.

We can conclude on the matter of the methodology that it has several levels, the one employed to develop this text which, fundamentally, reviewed the literature and a qualitative level of research; on the other hand, the conditions of the methodology for the study of the aspects addressed regarding conservation and other interventions, it is necessary to conduct broader studies of each definition, levels of action from the theoretical to the practical that allow for new instruments to explain the types of technical actions. Many of them acquire a different meaning in light of resilience and as actions in response to disasters or to mitigate socio-cultural damage, such as that of Notre Dame in Paris, France. In that context, critique allows for the direction of new themes from a constructivist epistemology, that is, to construct new theoretical references that expose the practice.

On the other hand, the issue of authenticity is sometimes limited by the multiple definitions, rather interpretations, so its explanation is situated in the idea of understanding time or temporality, viewed as historicity, more than the relationship with the history of building processes, intervention, and the object-subject relationship, being relative to the materials, history, and levels of what can be decoded from its sign process with meaning and signifier and its relationship with the semiotic. Authenticity has nothing to do with integrity, but due to its archaeological documentary role, the evidence takes an immeasurable level of what is the cultural legacy, and above all, the role of interpreting the contents, materials, elements, and aspects to be valued from a heritage in situ, or in statu quo. The Venice Charter, although still in use, is a reference point, but in many cases and topics it is outdated. The objective and subjective perspectives are not alien to discourses, but in the case of heritage, the idea of values is very important, with the historical instance and its documentary value being of great significance.

REFERENCIAS

1. Álvarez, M. (2008) Teoría de la historicidad (Síntesis)
2. Brandi, C. (1963) Teoría de la restauración (Alianza).
3. Carbonara, G. (1996) Restauro Architecttonico (Wet)
4. Casuso, G. y Serrano, J. (Eds.) Las armas de la crítica (Grupo editorial siglo XXI).
5. Espósito, D. (2023) Giovanni Carbonara arquitecto, historiador, teórico Giovanni Carbonara architect, historian, theorist.Revista Loggia, Nú. 23, pág. 6-25 https://riunet.upv.es/bitstream/handle/10251/201465/Esposito%20-%20Giovanni%20Carbonara%20architect%20historian%20theorist.pdf?sequence=1
6. González, V. I. 1999/2008. Conservación de bienes culturales. Teoría, historia, principios y normas (Cátedra).
7. ICOMOS. (1964) Carta internacional sobre la conservación y la restauración de
8. monumentos y sitios (Carta de Venecia – 1964). II Congreso Internacional de Arquitectos y Técnicos de Monumentos Históricos, Venecia 1964. https://intranet.inah.gob.mx/wp_ofiycirc/documents/carta_venecia.pdf
9. ONU. Agenda 2030. https://www.gob.mx/agenda2030
10. RAE (2024) Circunstancia. Diccionario de la Real Academia de la Lengua Española. https://dle.rae.es/circunstancia
11. Retamozo, M. (2011) La epistemología crítica de Hugo Zemelman. Revista de estudios políticos. UNAM.
12. Ricoeur, P. (1986[2002]) Del texto a la acción. Ensayos de hermenéutica (Fondo de Cultura Económica).
13. Riegl, A. (1903[2017]) El culto moderno a los monumentos (La balsa de la Medusa)
14. Sánchez, H. A. A. (2003) ‘Epistemología en la conservación del patrimonio edificado’. Revista Diseño y sociedad, UAM 15, 46-50
15. (2006) Epistemología y otras apreciaciones conceptuales sobre la conservación del patrimonio edificado (FABUAP)
16. (2021) Teoría y práctica de la conservación y restauración del patrimonio edificado y urbano (Librerío)
17. (2022) ‘El paisaje como documento‘. En libro de actas: II Simposio de Patrimonio Cultural ICOMOS España. Cartagena, 17 -19 de noviembre de 2022. https://doi.org/10.4995/icomos2022.2022.15350
18. (2023) ‘Paisaje y ciencia‘. En Azevedo, J. (Organizador) Ciencias humanas: perspectivas teóricas y fundamentos epistemológicos 4. Atena editores
19. UNESCO, (1972). Convención sobre la protección del patrimonio mundial, cultural y natural. www.unesco.org/convencion
20. Zunzunegui, J. M. (2023) Falsificar la historia (Grijalbo).