Good photo but it borders on exploitation of a down-and-out person. Did Ed Hatfield get the man's consent to have this intimate close-up posted on the Internet? Did he compensate the guy? Otherwise, to me, it's photographing him so that we can all gawk at the guy on our computers later whereas we would likely not gawk at him in person. Feels wrong.

Then don't look

By Kaz on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:23pm.

You must feel like a real ass disgracing Mona Lisa with your greedy little eyes whenever you visit the Louvre too, huh?

It's art. Get over yourself.

No comparison

By cyberboston on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:37pm.

The subject in Mona Lisa posed for the painting. Get over your own insensitivity to the idea that freely showcasing an individual's helplessness and disheveled appearance on the Internet as art may not be ethical.

Isn't that more or less the

By mike on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:42pm.

Isn't that more or less the definition of social art?

social art?

By cyberboston on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:52pm.

I dunno, mike. i'm not an artist and don't know what constitutes social art. i do have a sense that plastering a homeless guy's image on the Internet may be an intrusion on his privacy and on the dignity he should be accorded as a human being despite his circumstances.

Why assume anything

By Michael Kerpan on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 2:42pm.

If you think it is important, contact the photographer and ask if he got a release from the individual portrayed. For all you know, the photographer bought the guy a nice lunch after shooting the picture.

I see that guy during my

By anon on Mon, 06/28/2010 - 9:58pm.

I see that guy during my lunch break everyday.

Nobody knows the troubles he's seen

Comments

Support Universal Hub

In other Back Bay news