UPPFATTNINGAR OM FÖNSTER OCH FÖNSTERBYTEN Särskilt om skillnader och likheter mellan lekmän och experter

Abstract

This study describes and analyses how laypeople and the experts within the antiquarian field perceive and experience windows and window retrofits on historical buildings. One purpose is to compare if the two groups hold different views regarding window retrofits. Furthermore, the study analyses the different and corresponding discourses held by the two groups regarding how they perceive windows and window retrofits. The issue of how and if laypeople and experts within the antiquarian field hold different or corresponding views was made relevant to examine as a consequence of a judgment from the Land and Environment Court of Appeal. The judgment stated that a window retrofit should be judged by how visible the change is for laypeople, implying that laypeople has less tendency to perceive differences between two windows than experts. It is stressed in the field of conservation of the bult heritage that laypeople’s opinions and views on cultural heritage should be taken into consideration. This is because contemporary theory of conservation becomes relevant and valuable when people ascribe value to heritage objects. Laypeople’s opinions are however seldomly heard, nor do they represent the views of all the people concerned. This study confirmed that the authorized heritage discourse and the traditional views of experts and people with higher education is hard to broaden with alternative views and a representative group of the population. However, the study showed that laypeople hold the same views as experts regarding windows and window retrofits, they acknowledge the same differences, they talk about the same characteristics nearly in the exact extent, use the same jargon and they all consider window retrofits on historical buildings as non-acceptable. The study makes it clear that laypeople have a voice, they are interested and engaged in matters regarding our heritage, and they possess profound knowledge. Laypeople also show significant emotional value assessments with emphasis on negative feelings towards window retrofits in general. Regarding to the judgment from the Land and Environment Court of Appeal it is evident that the statement about laypeople’s tendency to perceive less differences when retrofits of windows are performed than experts, is for this investigated group incorrect. To achieve a broader generalisation from the results of this study, more research into a broader group of laypeople’s opinions and views of window retrofits needs to be performed.