01859nas a2200109   4500000000100000008004100001100001900042700002000061245013400081856015400215520138000369       2023                            d1 aE. Nakonieczna1 aJ. Szczepański00aAuthenticity of cultural heritage vis-à-vis heritage reproducibility and intangibility: from conservation philosophy to practice  uhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85150871611&doi=10.1080%2f10286632.2023.2177642&partnerID=40&md5=174bebaef7242d26574cb0f29c00aa763 aThis article states that the philosophical nature/ambiguity/controversy of the issue of authenticity undermines its usefulness as a tool in conservation practice. The main drawback is the inability to objectively define the notion of authenticity. In conservation philosophy, the meaning of authenticity relativizes along with the widespread consent to the reproducibility of cultural heritage, whereas the recognition of its intangibility negates the sense of authenticity. In the World Heritage (WH) policy and practice, the uselessness/counterproductivity of authenticity as a necessary requirement is visible in the inconsistency of this system in the treatment of the commonly realized reproducibility of cultural heritage, and in relation to heritage with a prevailing intangibility, which is illustrated by the example of Gdańsk as a potential WH site. Although the article provides many arguments for departing from the concept of authenticity in the WH system, authenticity introduces the socially beneficial element of discretion (it cannot be considered binarily), as it forces a discussion that raises cultural awareness in an increasingly homogenized world. Finally, to reduce some inconsistencies in the WH system, this paper recommends restoring autonomy to criterion (vi) in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.