Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Aesthetic Protective Glazing - Mark Bambrough Página 1 de 3

HOME DIRECTORY ARTICLES BOOKSHOP WHAT'S ON

Aesthetic Protective Glazing This article is reproduced from


Historic Churches, 2005

Author
Mark Bambrough MARK BAMBROUGH MA
(Con) AMGP ACR is a stained
glass conservator based in
For conservators, stained glass
Glasgow. For further
windows present some of the
information e-mail
greatest challenges in the field of
bambroughm@aol.com.
conservation. On the one hand they
include some of the most
spectacular works of art in this Further information
country; on the other they are
RELATED ARTICLES
integral elements of architecture. In
church windows, they are Churches (general)
continually buffeted by wind, soaked
by the rain and scoured by air-borne Stained glass
particles. Even condensation on the RELATED PRODUCTS AND
inner face takes its toll, supporting SERVICES
organisms which, over the
centuries, erode the decorated Glass protection
surfaces. In order to preserve
Stained glass
historic glass in its original location it
has now become common practice
to protect the most fragile and
special examples by moving them The whole window showing both the aesthetic protection (central light, upper middle section) and the mirror
image protective glazing above and below it
from their original position to the
inner face of the opening, with a new protective glazing system behind, separated by a slight air gap. Warmer air on the
inside of the building is thus allowed to circulate around both sides of the original glass, protecting it from condensation
(the 'isothermal' system).
Site Map
Internally, the change in the position in the glass has surprisingly little impact on the appearance of the stained glass as it
is still seen in its original framed opening, albeit with a very different structural support mechanism. However, externally © Cathedral Communications
the new protective glazing presents a very different story, even when the glass pane is broken up into small panes of Limited 2010
leaded lights which mirror the original glazing pattern. Firstly, the doubling of the lead matrix creates the so-called
'tramline' effect, both inside due to the shadow cast by the lead of the protective glazing, and outside due to the
appearance of the original lead through the clear glazing. Secondly, the appearance of the original glass through clear
protective glazing, although 'honest', is in itself distracting, as is the reflection off the protective glass. The latter may be
reduced by using low -reflective glass, but as yet the best available still shows reflection in raking light. And, thirdly, the
use of lead cames with clear glass creates an architectural aesthetic that is very different from that of stained glass and
without any historical precedence. In this respect, the use of clear glass sets the protective glazing system apart from the
building by denying the importance of what was there before, and by ignoring the stained glass windows' aesthetic and
historic contribution to the building, it also denies the whole sense of mystery that stained glass windows have when seen
from the outside.

Given these design limitations, all of the compromise currently has to be accommodated by the building and not the
stained glass. If we consider the window to be an integrated and unified part of architecture, where the two elements are
intended to work together, by changing their relationship to each other we radically alter the centuries-old dynamic
between glass and stone, image and structure, transparent and solid.

http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/aestheticprotective/aestheticprotective.htm 26/02/2011
Aesthetic Protective Glazing - Mark Bambrough Página 2 de 3

Above: Diagrammatic section showing


the
relationship between the original
stained glass and the protective
glazing

Right: seen from inside, the upper


middle section of the central light is
just as bright as the others, despite
the new aesthetic protective glazing.
Below right: this detail highlights the
difference in the reflective qualitites of
both the aesthetic protection (central
section) and the mirror image, which
is not present in the aesthetic
protection because its surface
appears opaque.

PARAMETERS

The aim of the experiment was to create a system of protection that would preserve the aesthetic integrity of a building's
exterior, by developing a system that minimised any visual impact upon its host structure. The premise that underpinned
this experiment was the primary significance of architecture over and above the decorative arts that adorn it. As Owen
Jones stated, 'The decorative arts arise from, and should properly be attendant upon architecture' (Grammar of
Ornament, 1856). Stained glass evolved as an integral element of architecture, and it should continue to be seen as
such. Architecture is not there to showcase stained glass.

This experimentation therefore questioned the motives of protective glazing in putting transparency before replication. In
particular, if honesty equates to transparency, does making the protective glazing imitate the stained glass necessarily
amount to deception? What truth is there in a 'mirror image' lead-line caricature of the original without its life, colour and
spirit? And is this more honest than trying to faithfully replicate and retain the essential relationship between glass and
stone? It could be argued that a deception in this case has a greater truth for the building and therefore has more
historical and aesthetic legitimacy than any other form of protective glazing.

This presented significant challenges. In addition to replicating the character of the exterior face of the original stained
glass, the solution also had to have minimal impact on the appreciation of the original stained glass from the interior. The
isothermal system with mirror image leading provided the benchmark, and the key issues for comparison therefore
included:

• the amount of transmitted light it blocked out


• the recreation of an exterior appearance
• the reduction or elimination of glare and reflection

To have any credibility, the experiment had to be part of a real project, and it had to enable the new system to be
compared with the current industry standard, the 'mirror image'. A test bed was therefore set up at Newkilpatrick Church
in Glasgow in which it would be possible to view both methods side by side. The window was already suffering from
extensive paint-loss and permission to install isothermal glazing had already been granted.

THE TECHNIQUE
All exterior stained glass surfaces have varying degrees of colour and shade within them. Each pane also breaks up and
reflects the light away from the surface at different angles. To capture these exterior characteristics within a protective
layer, the process chosen involved replicating the exterior appearance of a stained glass panel by transferring a
photograph of the panel on to clear glass through screen printing, and then slumping it into a mould to create the lead line
pattern. Because the coloured layer is extremely thin, this glass is almost transparent to transmitted light, and there is no
more light lost than from the mirror-image leading of conventional protective glazing. When mounted with the original
stained glass behind, the experiment confirmed that it was also opaque to reflected light. The surface therefore reflects
both the two-dimensional structure of the lead pattern and the colour of the painted surface, in much the same way as the
original. The gap between the two planes, ideally of 25-50mm, effectively forms a light-well across which any image or
shadow cast by the decoration on the protective glazing is almost completely diffused on the inner (original) glass.

http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/aestheticprotective/aestheticprotective.htm 26/02/2011
Aesthetic Protective Glazing - Mark Bambrough Página 3 de 3

The experiment confirmed the following advantages:

• The system accurately reproduces the form and detail of the original window
externally; no other system does this.
• It is impossible to see through its surface to the stained glass beyond, so there is
no confusion between the protective glazing and the stained glass. Your eye is
forced to look across the same visual plain as it would have done with the original
stained glass. It also eliminates any parallax problems, because the lead lines are
translucent, not opaque.
• The system is visually warmer and casts softer shadows than one with mirror
image leading.
• As each panel comes in one piece, it can either be laminated or toughened. The
lamination could also be a UV inhibitor to stop the most damaging effects of light.
The degradation of epoxy resin repairs in UV light has long been an issue; this
system could prevent that degradation.
• Finally it responds to surface light-play in the same way as stained glass, and
does not give off glare or reflection. It thereby retains the relationship between
glass and stone.

Irrespective of what method of protective glazing is used, both internal and externally
ventilated systems will always entail some loss of authenticity. This, however, does not
mean that protective glazing must look incongruous or ruinous to a building. Our
challenge as conservators is to develop new ways of dealing with the problem which
strive to maintain the historic relationship between glass and stone. Furthermore, these new techniques should allow
stained glass to be protected without that protection being achieved at the expense of the building as a whole, which may
be of far greater significance than the glass itself.

DIRECTORY | ARTICLES | BOOKSHOP | WHAT'S ON | CONTACT | ADVERTISE WITH US | CATHEDRAL COMMUNICATIONS

http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/aestheticprotective/aestheticprotective.htm 26/02/2011

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen