Speaking of art: Class code or historical residual?

Abstract

Knowledge and consumption of the fine arts were once considered symbolic of upper class standing. As cultural production has expanded, fine art products in various guises have become accessible to more people across the socioeconomic spectrum. This article looks at how the New York Times covered the American art scene in the 1950s and between 2000 and 2009 to investigate whether reporting has maintained a knowledge-based approach that provides evidence for the continuation of class status as it relates to writing about the arts. We argue that critics and reporters have used fungibility, social hierarchies, and disinterested language during these two time periods to maintain the role of the fine arts as a marker of social distinction.

Keywords:

• Art
• Fungibility
• Social hierarchy
• (Dis)interestedness

Notes

1 NYT is still considered elite, though the field of newspaper production and reading has changed.

2 The search mechanism changed in 2006, as the ProQuest historical archives for NYT end in 2006. Lexis–Nexis was used for 2007–2009 and has different search parameters.

3 According to inflation calculators, that $1000 would have been worth between $5000 and $6000 in 2000.

4 According to inflation calculators, $100 would have been worth approximately $660 in 2000.