I wasn't aware of Mike Disfarmer until coming across this thread. I kind of see where the above comment about him being a working photographer and this being the work of a working photographer comes from. As a buyer/viewer I'm not sure how much one or two prints of strangers staring at me would entice or interest me. As a collection of work it starts to become far more interesting, the style and substance of the work as a whole starts to become clearer and more interesting - perhaps, again as a buyer/viewer, I could have 20-50 prints to place as a block on a wall I'd start to get the enjoyment from overall span. It reminds me in my relationship to it of the old Victorian mugshot photos, that element of social History that simply fascinates.
I should also accept my own limitations here. As someone who has never been as impressed with portrait photography as with other genres. Admittedly, this has much to do with my own discomfort at successfully (or more aptly unsuccessfully) drawing something from the sitter. Though the sheer volume of shared lack of success in this regard has also tainted my desire to view much photographic portraiture - portraiture still being the biggest photographic endeavour (even beating 'street' 😉 ) when you include pictures of friends, family, selfies, FB etc etc. Perhaps volume is the key. I can deal with one portrait that strikes hard or seeps in quite easily but everything else washes over me, overwhelming me completely unless I accept that its the ocean itself that's impressive, not the wave.
Now whether the Venture style photography will have that same value in seventy or eighty years I don't know. With the forced/suggested/over-egged 'fun' found in that style I'd like to suggest not but it will without any doubt tell its own tale to future generations.
