The Vital Functions of Light 
in the Home 
HOW LIGHT INFLUENCES MENTAL AND PHYSICAL 
CONDITIONS—THE QUESTION OF EYE STRAIN—MEANS 
OF LIGHTING THAT MAY PRODUCE THE ATMOS¬ 
PHERE OF HOME-HOW TO REMEDY PRESENT EVILS 
by F. Laurent Godinez 
Editor's Note. —Science has advanced much during the last decade in eliminating evils 
and correcting abuses, especially those connected with home living. We have a better 
architecture, mure efficient means of sanitation, but in one department of the home we 
remain woefully ignorant. The question of illumination is answered to-day with little 
consideration of the esthetic. We are entirely unaware of the vast possibilities of light 
as a means of decoration and know nothing of its subtle influence upon our health and , 
even our mental attitude. Mr. Godinez has spent much time and careful research in this 
held and has astonishing disclosures to make, that will awaken our dormant sensibilities. 
Although his criticism is direct, it is of the highest order in that he offers a remedy for 
each abuse which he makes apparent. He does not advocate any definite equipment, but 
he suggests how each individual may make use of his own to best advantage, and what 
are the desirable requisites of new material. In this article he tells his readers for the 
first tune the important part light plays in their lives, its physical and psychical effect upon 
us In another issue he will give practical suggestions of great value and inspiration. 
L IGHT in the home 
is as we make it. 
It may be a source of 
comfort, an inspiring 
influence, an element of 
the beautiful, or — in the utilitarian sense — just a part of things, a 
servant in the house; nothing more. 
There is no other product of modern civilization which exercises 
so great an influence for good or evil in the home. Nerves may 
be shattered by its violent use, despondency and melancholia 
brightened by its subtle influence. Eye strain and chronic head¬ 
ache will result from its misuse. Eye comfort and visual acuity 
are the rewards of its intelligent appreciation. Taken as it is to¬ 
day in allopathic doses, as an antidote for darkness, artificial light 
is overstimulating and dangerous. Assimilated naturally in 
visually palatable homeopathic form, it is a wonderful tonic; but 
as prescribed by the incompetent, it is pitifully inadequate, and 
a deadly menace to the eyesight. 
Let us momentarily consider the causes for such an unfortunate 
state of affairs. In the wholesale manufacture and distribution 
of artificial light, we are confronted with the inevitable triangle 
of human forces, slightly modified from the conventionalized 
triangle of the melodrama, but still a triangle in the functional 
sense. In this instance the triumvirate consists of: 
First; the manufacturer of energy in luminous form from coal, 
popularly known as “that Gas or Electric Light Company, 
operating by franchise as a public service corporation. Second; 
the manufacturer of energy transforming devices—lamps, which 
convert gas or electricity (energy) into the visible luminous form 
of light, and their accessories, lighting glassware and fixtures. 
Third, but by no means least, the public which is theoretically 
presumed to enjoy, thrive, and prosper by the combination of the 
first and second forces named. 
When the consumer of electric energy in the form of light has 
fault to find with the service rendered, he invariably accuses the 
lighting company. In most cases, however, the fault lies with 
the form of the lamp or the device for transforming the energy 
into light. This is the weak link in the chain that connects the 
consumer and producer. We have advanced toward a *" 
greater appreciation of esthetic considerations in many 
things but we are ignorant where such consideration 
should apply in lighting. We might call this the dark age 
of lighting, paradoxical though it may be. We have plenty 
of brilliance but neither the conception of its proper use 
nor the satisfactory means to enjoy it. 
While the contractor and the architect's assistant are 
directly blamed for the perfunctory spirit in which they 
have placed impossible lighting equipment in the home, it 
must be admitted that they are utterly dependent upon 
the manufacturer of 
lighting accessories for 
the data which has been 
quantitative rather than 
qualitative. 
An eminent authority on interior decoration states: “The 
technical man, or engineer, has narrowed his perspective by an 
exclusive consideration of economic and utilitarian, rather than 
aesthetic considerations. He has knowledge of lamps and their 
construction but smiles indulgently, and with smug complacency 
at the mere idea of estheticism in lighting.” — Fie has no ap¬ 
preciation for environment, knows naught of that consistent 
relationship between light and color, which is the essence of 
decoration — or atmosphere. It is individuals of this negative 
type who are responsible for the unrealized possibilities of 
artificial light and who have offensively prohibited co-operation 
with those most eminently qualified by nature and experience to 
advance the cause of artificial light — the decorator and architect. 
These criticisms do not apply to the illuminant manufacturer 
in the sense of belittling his achievement in illuminant improve¬ 
ment—for in the tungsten lamp of to-day, evolved by ceaseless 
experiments from Mr. Edison’s first electric lamp of over thirty 
years ago, we have a luminous medium of singular flexibility and 
economy. Similarly, the pioneer work of Dr. Carl Auer Von 
W-elsbach, has given to the world an incandescent gas mantle, at 
least, equalling the tungsten lamp in quantity and quality of 
light. 
This question of quantity and quality of modern light sources 
is of grave import. Because he has succeeded in creating an 
illuminant which approximates daylight and assists industrial 
occupation, the illuminant manufacturer is laboring under the 
delusion that his tungsten lamp with its white light is a universal 
panacea for all lighting ills. So far, however, only the industrial- 
utilitarian and commercial-economic aspects have received his 
recognition. 
In the lighting of the home, the glare of day perpetuated at 
night by artificial illuminants is unnatural — opposed to nature’s 
teachings, entirely lacking in that element of repose which should 
delicately emphasize the quiet and peace of eventide in the 
home. 
Let us first consider the physiological aspect of artificial 
light in the home, and determine briefly just what consti¬ 
tutes ocular hygiene. 
One of the necessary requisites for ocular comfort is 
that the brilliancy of a light source in the visual field 
should be restricted within certain limits. “Illuminating 
Engineers” who have rudely invaded the field of the 
physiologist, have agreed after most exhaustive controversy 
that light sources having a specific brightness of from 
(26) 
