Found film

I dunno, it still seems like exploitation to me. What is the purpose of this photograph?

this is a compelling photograph, however it is important to honor people's wishes.

It is up to you to honor them, and up to
you to come to terms if you have or have not.

The photograph has an obvious meaning to me.

Corey

I agree with banana. What is the point of this except to bemuse ourselves at someone's expense?
Dennis

There is discomfort, and the offer of escape.
Maybe it's desire and the chance at fulfillment.
Maybe a turning away from the mirror..

However things were, the connection is between the subject, his expression, and the glaring light of the window..

It's interesting to consider this "found" document...
whether the image was intended for personal viewing or otherwise...
to ponder whether we are prying into someone's private thoughts, or fulfilling their intentions...

Either way, there is no way for the viewer not to be implicated.
I don't think the act of displaying the work is itself transgressive (if you knew the intent of the subject with its regard then maybe) - but as things are you are merely offering us a door, a door that once entered MUST lead to either the invasion of privacy or complicity with the subject.

Whether it appears to us as one thing or another seems entirely dependent on the mental frame of the viewer.

I don't care who took the picture, I like it.
Better to be shown to a group of photographers than never to be shown at all.

Do I understand this correctly? You post a picture of a naked man who may be "challenged" and think that because it is 20yrs old that makes it ok? Maybe I'm missing something here but would the individual pictured be one of those "challenged"? Maybe by challenged, you mean he was down on his luck. If the man pictured has a diminished mental ability, I have a problem with it. If the man did not consent to you displaying a photo of him naked--I have a major problem with this. Hop in your time machine and go back 20yrs--ask the gentleman "Hey in 20yrs I'm going to publicly display you naked". If you can honestly say he did consent--then I don't have a problem. If he didn't I hope you remove the posting and carefully consider the rights of others. This picture appears far from one taken in a public setting--rather one taken where a person would assume a level of privacy.

Photographic merits aside, I think there are some significant issues here. The photograph is recent enough that the individual is probably recognizable. Eric acknowledges that the individual was 'challenged' which generally creates special concerns about exploitation and the ability to give consent.

And frankly, I would also be concerned that there are those (particularly in the US) who would infer from the subject's nakedness that this 'unfortunate, challenged individual was abused'. It might be difficult to defuse such an accusation 20 years after the fact, especially if the subject is sufficiently challenged that he is unable to describe what was actually happening at the time of the photography.

Why, exactly, were you photographing him naked in the first place?

I believe Troy's question posted above is the one that "ERIC" should answer.

TEX

Of course, times have changed in the last 20 years. Today, obtaining consent to take naked pictures of the MR/DD population, especially if you are one of the caretakers, would be impossible. I'm sure some, who are prone to moments of profundity and insight, will appreciate this photo. However, I don't see the point of taking nudy pics of mentally retarded people.