Speaking of art: Class code or historical residual?

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.

► While the avant-garde art scene had moved beyond one or two movements by the 1980s, reporting on the arts in the 1950s and early years of the Twenty-First Century looks to share many similarities
► New York Times reporters and critics drawn on specific language when reporting on the arts which can be used as markers of class distinction
► New York Times reporters and critics rarely define art as either high or low brow.