Exactly. The "big five" programs will always remain at the top overall. There the movement is mostly tied to specific fields: which particular one(s) is/are at the momement better or worse for 20th century or Renaissance or Chinese or what have you.
IMHO there have been some actual changes in quality in the next 5-10 programs. For example, Berkeley definitely pales to what it was 10-15 years ago, UCLA is also weaker, but Chicago is stronger overall and Stanford seems to be on an upward trajectory. But whether or not this matters in terms of placement is debatable. I suspect Berkeley will still place well enough on its famous name, solid training, and good incoming students, at least for another decade or so. The real change is the tier below that, at places like CUNY, Indiana, Rutgers, Bryn Mawr, BU, Delaware, or Santa Barbara. A generation ago they had stronger faculties and used to place decently enough (often quite well in certain subfields), but now even their very best students working with high profile scholars are extremely lucky to get any tenure line job anywhere.
So to whoever asked: no, the rankings haven't really changed. Which PARTICULAR program of the top 10 is right for you might be different now than it was before (Prof. X is now at Y instead of Z, Prof. A retired from B and wasn't replaced, so forth), but the list of top programs is basically set in stone, at least for Western art. As someone has already pointed out, non-Western fields work a bit differently, possibly because there's still new hiring going on in those areas, esp. for contemporary.