Q 1--The photo doesn't appeal to me, nor do I find it interesting. I do find it awkward.
Q 2--No.
Q 3--I find the composition poor. It's a weak angle--straight on and basically bulls-eyed, and there's another person growing out of the boy's head. The angle of the camera makes the boy look distorted.
Q 4--It is beyond my imagination that the price could be that high for what to me is a common snapshot. I realize that it's photojournalism, and I suppose there's shock value in the toy grenade. That said, I don't see all the fuss about it. There are lots of photojournalistic/street photos posted here on this forum that have significantly more impact than this one does.

Let the bashing begin.

It's a kid feigning 'scaredness', like kids do, and in this case was probably told to do. That doesn't stop it having appeal, but I see it as a light-hearted joke, nothing more.
The shot is quite 'street' and uncomposed in terms of background, but that's OK as it adds to the 'in the moment' feel that the photographer is surely trying achieve.
I don't see it as a weird person shot at all. I can't say I like weird people shots as they automatically have a hint of exploitation about them, yet if nobody took them, the unfortunate subject might feel ostracised, so it's one or the other - no middle road unless the person is a personal friend, which overcomes all the obstacles, eventually.

As for value, that's the same as everything else - wholly dependant on what the market will pay. That's usually changeable or at least can stagnate. I wouldn't pay it because I couldn't afford it, but if I could, easily, and wanted it enough, why not? Don't say because it could be put to better use - that's too easy and, anyway, who knows what people donate privately to good causes as well as apparently spending outrageously? More to the point, what would Arbus have thought of that price?
Diane Arbus, like Robert Mapplethorpe and, more recently, Miron Zownir was sometimes out to shock people, and succeeded. We don't have to like it.

1. Do you find this image appealing? Disturbing? How does it make you feel and why?

I don't necessarily find the image appealing, nor disturbing, but I do find it unique and if given the opportunity, I would take some similar myself of various characters, because I'm always on the look out for that special character that appeals to my eyes. Expression and body language has so much more of an impact and while it is not always achieved it is desired.

2. Does the selection of a child subject have affect your opinion in any way?

To me it does not matter about the subject. Although, we have to be careful in todays society when it comes to photographing children. I normally stay away and not take them, but I never rule it completely out.

3. What do you think of the composition? The angle? The presentation?

Quite frankly, the composition isn't that bad. The person coming out of the boy's head does not bother me. To my eye, its street and it is what it is. Could it have been better planned and composed? Yes, but thats always something I ask myself afterwards and learn from it. This is an early 60's photo and it shows. I sometimes strive to create a similar look and feel.

4. What do you think about its recent monetary evaluation at $785,000? Is the value justified? Why or why not?

I'm not convinced that any photo is worth that much money, but what is one person's junk is someone else's treasure. Who is to say what one single image is worth? Someone must have thought it was worth it and paid it.

5. How do you feel about pictures of "€œmarginalized people€"? Do you take them yourself? Do share them? Feel free to share one of your images, or link to images of "marginalized people" that you think are quality images.

I'm on the fence with this question, so I'll just leave it at that.

Now that I have at least answered the questions, I would like to mention a little more about the image and photographer. I find that I'm drawn to the photo, because it's probably one that I would have taken myself. Yes, the subject is more centered, but there is a leading line of the walkway that adds to the composition. The body language and expression is priceless. The quality and presentation is appealing to me for the fact I, at times attempt to create something similar. The dirty kneecaps, the one strap hanging loose from his shorts, the one clawed hand and the other with a toy hand grenade all adds to a story for the viewer to decide. All in all, I like this very much.

I have never heard of the photographer, but after reading from some of the links, I find her to have been a troubled, but yet interesting character.

I like dpullum's metaphor, and think his term is correct. Bob Dylan, a musician/song writer and while he had/has a terrible voice, he still had success, even to this day. Its all about style and tastes. What attracts me may not attract someone else. Same applies to photography. Everyone is different and I'm so glad of that. Can you imagine everyone being like Homer Simpson or have the same tastes and desires as he does? I just used Homer as an example because he was the first misfit that came to mind as I typed this. I hope I haven't bored anyone and I'll shut up now. Maybe more to come?
Dave

American photographer Diane Arbus has been described as the most radical photographer of the 20trh century. Her specialty was photographing marginalized or unusual looking people: circus performers, sideshow "freaks", prostitutes, nudists. Arbus took many noteworthy photographs of unusual people throughout her career, but this photograph of an awkward-looking child clutching a toy hand grenade remains one of her most enigmatic images. She has been accused of blatant sensationalism because of her preference for photographing these subjects. Much has been written and theorized about her attraction to the subjects she sought out, and I've linked some of these resources below. She is considered one of the most influential photographers of the 20th century, and her images have been displayed in MOMA, the Met, and most other prestigious venues. She had her own demons, and in 1971 committed suicide while still in her 40s.

"Child With A Toy Hand Grenade"€ is considered her most famous image. A signed print of this image of a rather peculiar looking child standing in Central Park holding a toy grenade, sold for $785,000 in 2015. Please share your thoughts about this unusual image. These questions may help you formulate your ideas.

1. Do you find this image appealing? Disturbing? How does it make you feel and why?
2. Does the selection of a child subject have affect your opinion in any way?
3. What do you think of the composition? The angle? The presentation?
4. What do you think about its recent monetary evaluation at $785,000? Is the value justified? Why or why not?
5. How do you feel about pictures of "€œmarginalized people€"? Do you take them yourself? Do share them? Feel free to share one of your images, or link to images of "marginalized people" that you think are quality images.

Links to Learn More
https://www.lomography.com/magazine/255096-influential-photographs-child-with-toy-hand-grenade-in-central-park-1962-by-diane-arbus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Arbus
https://www.thecut.com/2016/07/diane-arbus-c-v-r.html
http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2016/diane-arbus
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/06/diane-arbus-portrait-of-a-photographer
http://www.theartstory.org/artist-arbus-diane-artworks.htm

Note: I'll be away for a couple of weeks, and am unsure how much internet access I'll have, so please don't feel unappreciated if my responses on this thread are a bit erratic. My husband and I will be with Graham and RG so, internet or not, we'll be in good hands and we'll be having fun in Scotland!