Humphry Bash
Sir: I was somewhat surprised see that a letter from Mr Berkete had been entitled ' Humphry 88.1, (June 24). My surprise was effect! ely dispersed on reading it. Notl could have more thorougly impai his reputation than his own wor,,) The first paragraph displays 0: ignorance of English; tendentio0' means having a rigorous SI/ unequivocal tendency, a lo which I bear with pride, and which Mr Berkeley can hardly claim. ' Mendacious ' means dece ful; it does not mean differing fr Mr Berkeley as to the significalt of events and words.
In the context of the time, -t quotation from his article dol less appeared less like a CI attempt to have it both ways to it does is retrospect. The final paragraph cont wholly of a puerile jibe, which disingenuous rather than 19e dacious, since it can have dece nobody. This correspondence, combist the suspense of Flash Gordon the moral atmosphere of Tom Jerry, has been gorgeously evo tive of my childhood, and eiti neither Mr Berkeley nor mY will willingly forgo the last 11/0 the progress from the Daily Worker, the Architects' Journal, the RIBA Journal to Director of Public Affairs is interesting. In fact it involves Mr McEwen even more, for The Architectural Press has formed architectural taste since the 'thirties and with the censorship of all style, but " scientific modernism " helped to ossify the promising Modern Movement: and Mr McEwen moved to the RIBA to help its establishment. And in recognition the RIBA last year gave its Gold Medal to the Chairman of The Architectural Press and J. M. Richards has just been knighted — and both "for services to architecture," though in March the latter called the assembled establishment of the RIBA "polluters of the environment " for doing little more than imitating the prototypes he recommended!
Since last June Mr McEwen has called me "ignorant, arrogant," and " absurd ' and " weak on facts," but neither he (nor anyone) has contradicted the facts and figures of the Economic Fallacy that I have concentrated on. I do not detest the Modern Movement — only what has been made of it and consider, with others of The 2,000 Group, a return to classical principles as a solution of the dilemma of modernism and conservation; and the antidote to anarchy. And incidentally, though Mr McEwen offered to "thrash the issues out on BBC or ITA or anywhere," the BBC claim that our discussion with Sir Jim Richards and Mr McEwen would become a heated argument (it need not be heated but the public are entitled to it): and now Mr McEwen is not interested in persuading the BBC to implement his undertaking! Mr McEwen writes finally that I eould like to see Piccadilly Circus designed in the traditional manner. Quite so! But he adds, "if it were possible." It is. Traditional or classical architecture is no more expensive than " modernist " and often even less so. At least the public should know that it is still feasible. And he ends — "style is almost entirely irrelevant " — and that from the Director of Public Affairs of the RIBA! No wonder we are in a muddle. The 2000 Group's basic aim is Style. It is Mr McEwen who is arrogant, ignorant, absurd and weak on facts. and as a solicitor he will know that to write and speak the truth, in the public interest, is not libel. He also notes that I see "reds under the bed." I did not mention them, but there is something nasty under the national bed — and it is not jerries this time!
Derrick Oxley
72 Oakley Street, London SW3
Previous page
