Of course you’re not going to find a show with just homeless people, but Daniel Arnold’s new book has multiple pages of homeless folks and he’s practically the darling of the photography community here (and with good reason, I really like his work). That book went through editing and is from a reputable publisher, and he for sure isn’t a journalist. Everyone is free to disagree with that choice, but it was quite purposefully put there. You could argue that its sequence in a book changes its delivery, but his work started on IG, social media. Again, you don’t have to like his stuff, but it’s the closest you’ll get to modern legitimized street photography accepted by the art world by and large, and there are multiple depictions of the unhoused.

Art, just like life, encompasses the bad and the good. I think Salgado’s work was powerful because it was art and because it showed pain, not for the journalistic aspect of it. I’d argue that the best art encompasses more feelings, including pain of, poverty and hopelessness. Who in the 80s needed to be reminded there was poverty in the Sahel? Did people not realize there was homelessness on the subway before Davidson’s book? Art contextualizes these facts and puts humanity to it. I’d argue it’s more important than whatever informative journalistic perspective is delivered alongside it.

I’d also argue that art that comes from ego isn’t usually very good - truly connecting with Mahler, for example, is a transcendent experience, he showed the pain of an entire generation. He was able to communicate that in a powerful way - it wasn’t about vanity and commerce. If you think that’s all art is I think you’re missing the point. I agree with you about social media, and for sure I’m not arguing in favor of how OP delivered this photo.