“Woman reaching for merchandise on a street vendor’s cart in Arlington, Virginia” is the well-documenting title (pity there’s no date ! …) of a shockingly insignificant photograph. This ridiculous photograph has to be seen to be believed as it is about nothing at all; yet it is given as an example of “street photography” ! See the equally hopeless article at Wikipedia, screaming out for revision, or in fact: rewriting … Who will have a go at it ?
Whoever is confused about the definition of street photography, may be inclined to look it up in the pages of Wikipedia. I personally was shocked to see some less-than-mediocre color photographs, having nothing in common but the fact that they were obviously taken of people outdoors, and a meaninglessness next to non-existance. These uninspired photos were intended as illustrations for a short, imprecise attempt at defining street photography, followed by extended ramblings about overcoming shyness !! [shy?- don’t even try!] , being invisible, tricks, the “right” equipment [can you imagine paints, brushes, or canvas being mentioned in an article about, let’s say: impressionism], and endless legal considerations, all of which reads more like “photography for dummies” than a serious article about photography (as art). This would put off and discourage anybody ever wanting to take a picture that might include (oh, the horror…) a complete stranger.
Could somebody (with more patience, and more knowledge of Wikipedia than me) please take the time one of these days to update this Wikipedia article about street photography, and balance its various aspects in a way that makes more sense. I think of a serious photographer rather than a legal adviser… Some Garry Winogrand quotes would fit in fine, I think, as would a few real street photographs for a change!