Victor Hugo argues that Gutenberg’s invention killed architecture. The question is: what is the extent of the validity of this argument? At that time, some might have believed that it did, but I believe that it only served to help architecture to develop and to become more innovative.
At that time, the church, in vast majority, served as the main medium of education. This form of education excluded many and the printing press made education more accessible to the public, making it easier to obtain documents. Now one could read a vast variety of articles and educate oneself. The possibilities became limitless and one such group the seized this chance were architects. They could assess manuals on architectural mathematics and design greatly helping their chances for success. The education has allowed to develop architecture and to make it more sustainable in the long term, as well as provide the overall increase in the amount of burgeoning new architects.
The printing press also helped to infuse culture into various societies. Architects could study the works and styles of others all across the world. This cultural infusion innovated design and style, making architects more daring and diverse. Print allowed architects to build to new heights, using diverse mediums and constituents. This also led to the eventual increase in the arts popularity. People began taking an interest and they began viewing architecture in a different way.
