LETTERS
349
whether England or Germany wins the
war, so you say.
Then why don't you keep quiet?
Do you hope to make
everybody
nega–
tive? Do you hope even to influence
movements which are building on a Ger·
man victory?
... It was nice that you didn't make
Greenberg (writing about Klee) nega.
tive
in
this recent issue. He has a point
of view, significant even to people not
agreeing with him.
New York City
Very truly yours,
HALCOMB GREENE
P.R. wants to make nobody negative,
does not intend to keep quiet. See the
'propositions on the war' by Greenberg
and Macdonald in this issue.-Eo.
DISSATISFIED CUSTOMER
Editor's Note: Mr. Farrell asks us to
print the note that follows, sent to the
editor of
The Nation.
Dear Miss Kirchwey :
I used to subscribe to
The Nation.
In
the days when I was a subscriber, I read
the articles and dispatches of your foreign
correspondent, Louis Fischer. I am now
reading Mr. Fischer's book,
Men and
Politics,
and I learn, by his own confes–
sion, that he suppressed facts concerning
Russia and the Moscow trials, and re·
!rained from telling us what he really
thought of Stalin's internal policy and
regime. In the light of Mr. Fischer's own
admission, I feel that I was defrauded
by
The Nation.
I think that it is only
fair and proper of you to return to me
the money I spent in subscriptions to
your magazine. I was paying for honest
intellectual goods, and I now learn from
Mr. Fischer, himself, that I was not get·
ting these goods.
You can find the exact period of my
subscription in your records. I shall be
grateful for your
c~ck
refunding me
this amount.
May 10, 1941
New York City
Sincerely yours,
JAMES
T.
FARRELL
WHAT IS FUNCTIONALISM?
Sirs:
"Functionalism," according to
Mr.
Alan Mather, in his article on
Function-
alism and Naive Materialism
in
Ameri–
can Architecture,
"consists of discover–
ing the special characteristics of a group
of people, and then of designing a build–
ing so fitted to these group peculiarities
as to create a new and socially expres–
sive form or architectural type.
Functionalism relates to social forms
which grow out of
all
the natural needs
of man. Naive materialism is concerned
only with those attributes of men which
are useful to capitalism."
Since we accept these categories, we
must take exception when Mr. Mather
states the case against naive materialism
in entirely different terms, when he says
that "above all, naive materialism flouts
the immaterial facts of ·consciousness and
denies place to emotionalism in archi–
tecture," that it strives to eliminate "sen–
sitiveness to the effects of texture, color,
mass, and line." For on the basis of Mr.
Mather's original definition a stronger
case for the aesthetic superiority of func–
tionalism can be made apart from the
concept of beauty as a superimposable
element.
It
should be made clear that the
theory
of functionalism does not neglect the
"sensibilities." On the contrary it asserts
that people find pleasure in the corres–
pondence between ·form and purpose;
that buildings designed to fit the needs
of the users are beautiful
because
they
are so designed. Furthermore, ornament
may improve or detract; and choices of
material, mass, and color must be made,
and should be made with the sensitive–
ness which Mr. Mather praises. These,
however, are secondary.
To use Mr. Mather's own example:
Parkchester
is
hideous, but not because
it neglects the immaterial facts of con–
sciousness nor because it lacks emotion–
alism. Its unpleasantness is due to the
fact that the buildings are so visibly not
designed to meet the physical and social
needs of the people who . live in them.
As Mr. Mather says, "under naive mate–
rialism the definition of functionalism is
strained to include an agreement with the
requirements of capitalism." Parkches–
ter falls far short of adequate standards
of density and orientation. Had these
standards been applied, they would have
gone a long way toward putting
