In the past 30 years almost everything has changed in terms of the historic building-related practices and the theoretical groundings that were once considered appropriate. According to the earlier practice, the professional dilemmas were dealt with by the centrally managed authorities, with the guidance of the knowledgeable, experienced senior colleagues. The only operating office at the time (the National Inspectorate for Historic Building Conservation, henceforth OMF) was the one deciding in issues regarding conservation, done with some ministry control, but going over the heads of almost all local architectural authorities, and generally carried out the works that mostly lasted for years without any building permits.
The theoretical basis for the practice adopted after the war was given by the famous colleagues working in Hungary from the end of the 19th century, in accordance with the guidelines of the international charters. Moreover, in some cases certain Hungarian examples had even preceded them. By the time the Venice Charter was adopted, a new generation had already contributed with many a successful example to supporting the short and laconic definitions of the charter with practical examples. These historic buildings displayed in the “pure style” of the time, in a sound manner even in the international context, what was expected of them in the new technical, international architectural trends in line with the spirituality of the charters.
By the end of the ‘80s a lot was questioned also on an international level in the practice of historic building conservation, mostly due to the postmodern trends. In our country a whole series of debates lingered on, concerning the steps to be taken in historic building conservation, ending in 1986 with the short bulleted “catechism” of the OMF.
The new generation treated certain issues from a new perspective in the ‘90s. By the turn of the century the former principles had almost completely changed and the pursuit of deadlines, political commission, and state representations became almighty. The axiomatic provisions of the Venice Charter were overshadowed, and many signs of a new trend also became visible internationally by the 2004 anniversary. The appetite for tourist attractions replaced the authentic completions based on historical data.
My work as a supervisor and manager with the Office has to do with the aforementioned three decades, from which I shall take some examples to depict the many dilemmas of authenticity and reconstruction. Although I have participated only in a few preparations of the tourist attractions built all over the country in the last decades, the small issues also constantly put the specialist to the test, and only by a series of agonising decisions can he/she take longterm value-certain and authentic decisions against the developers’ or the political requirements.
Keywords: historic building conservation, reconstruction, authenticity, professional experience
