Abstract: The Ruskin-Whistler lawsuit is an important event in the history of Western art.While previous studies mostly focus on their different artistic views, this article points out that the artistic dispute can be traced back to deeper socio-economic reasons.It explores into the neglected social theory of Ruskin in his later period and resorts to Marxist economic theory as well the consumption culture theory, in order to re-examine this lawsuit from the interdisciplinary perspective of economics.The dispute between Ruskin and Whistler lies in their different concepts on art production and consumption when the society transited from the era of supply to that of consumption.Ruskin's economic theory focuses on the labor theory of value and conforms to Marxist economics.He believes that commodities have fixed intrinsic value and negates exchange value as well as consumerism, arguing that commodities should be priced according to the labor cost in production.Art differs from common commodities and undertakes the duty of promoting social morality.Whistler adapted himself to the changes of the times.His works gained public applause due to their avant-garde and novelty in a consumer society dominated by visual culture.His focus on form reflects the non-functional nature of commodities in the consumer era.Ruskin insists on the redemptive function of art, while Whistler's success marks the beginning of the era of the capitalization of aesthetics.