Actually, I would qualify both of these as the aforementioned 'artporn' I spoke of, because they're in service of self-satisfaction instead of social change. This is not to say they are 'bad' images - they're strong images, and at least the one is a critique of the people passing behind the man in the wheelchair. But otherwise, how do either of these promote social change? They don't- they both reinforce the photographer's and by extension the viewer's sense of moral superiority either to the people ignoring the man in the wheelchair or to the man passed out on the sidewalk. They're artporn because they serve to gratify the photographer first before anything else. This is not to say that there is no place for self-satisfying imagery, but in the context of photographing people who lack the ability to give or withhold their consent, I'd say it is in fact unethical and inappropriate.