There’s a difference between the emphasis and your emphasis. I look at Arbus’s work and do see the humanity in the people she photographed, very much so. This is what I choose to emphasize. I do think a lot of folks saw much of her work as merely shock value. I think whatever shock value it had needn’t be reduced to just that. I actually see it as being meant NOT to shock but rather to be very matter of fact. That people may have been shocked by the directness and matter-of fact-ness of it at first seems to have yielded in time to an empathy for it among many viewers and that seems the more lasting effect and push than any immediate shock. While there may be a case to be made that shock value merely for its own sake is shallow, it also may be underestimating Arbus to make the case that whatever shock value her photos may be perceived to have is simply just that. Yes, and I said as much by referencing the stalwart nature of Judeo-Christian and natural law values. What hasn’t been around for as long as human history is the application of that principle to people with various differences in physical and mental states, people of different sexual orientations, and people of different races. Photography doesn’t alter the principle. It can, though, bring to the light new applications of it. Artists or others who have demons and commit suicide, though their own spirits may be compromised, can still offer light (even through darkness) to others. Art has a cathartic effect and the expression or even the artifice of darkness can be a kind of purge sometimes, leading one to light, if not the artist herself, then the compassionate or empathetic viewer.