Servant and served space is an concept used in architectural theory and planning. Simply put, it is this:
Servant space is the framework of utilitarian spaces that connects, frames, and enables the served space to perform its programmatic duties. A servant space may be a corridor, a staircase, an alcove, a storeroom, a bathroom, mechanical room or a similar secondary space.
Servant space is the framework of utilitarian spaces that connects, frames, and enables the served space to perform its programmatic duties. A servant space may be a corridor, a staircase, an alcove, a storeroom, a bathroom, mechanical room or a similar secondary space.
In the example of Karl Friedrich Schinkel's Altes Museum, the primary spaces are (1) the Portico; (2) the Rotunda; and (3) the Galleries. Viewed through the lens of servant/served spaces, I would argue that Schinkel's plan is a masterpiece of economic circulation in addition to the harmony of its proportions. The servant and served spaces mirror each other, meaning: (a) every primary space has access to every other; and (b) every primary space has at least two connection points, saving any one part of the museum from isolation. In their placement and utility, the served spaces achieve a beauty all their own.
The philosophy of servant/served spaces posits that there are two types of space: Ones that have a vital function to perform and those whose job it is to support this first group. What happens if you replace the word spaces with surfaces? Are there surfaces that have a vital function to perform, and others whose job it is to support them? What happens when a tool for architectural analysis is focused instead on a car?
The object on our dissection table is a Mercedes 190E, chosen because it has very clearly delineated surfaces that are easily divided into servant and served. Just as with Schinkel, we are defining a servant surface as one that connects, frames, and/or enables the served surface. While the concept of servant/served space has been developed for over a century (it was part of the Beaux-Arts architectural training, and later re-framed by modernists such as Louis Kahn), it seems not to have been applied to car design.
Looking at a vehicle's design in this light throws up several interesting questions: How and why are primary/ secondary surfaces distributed on the car? If there are certain patterns, how can these be challenged or disrupted? How can we get the most expression out of the servant surfaces in particular ? Do Headlights/ Grille/ Taillights/ Mirrors count as servant or served surfaces?
I hope that with tools like servant/served surface we can establish a higher plane of car design analysis beyond "this car is pretty/ugly/pretty ugly." Taking a lens from architectural theory is just the start. More to follow in future posts.
Looking at a vehicle's design in this light throws up several interesting questions: How and why are primary/ secondary surfaces distributed on the car? If there are certain patterns, how can these be challenged or disrupted? How can we get the most expression out of the servant surfaces in particular ? Do Headlights/ Grille/ Taillights/ Mirrors count as servant or served surfaces?
I hope that with tools like servant/served surface we can establish a higher plane of car design analysis beyond "this car is pretty/ugly/pretty ugly." Taking a lens from architectural theory is just the start. More to follow in future posts.