That sounds awfully close to children who spend their whole life trying to please their never-satisfied father and his idea who they should be, never actually figuring out what that is.
You two are turning into genre police, I am afraid. You are not only mocking whole genres, like landscape, you are now mocking people’s attempts to fit into your own beloved, yet ever-elusive genre definition, which more and more looks like a Procrustean bed.
Slobodan, if you sit down and actually study the work of the people who defined street photography you'll see their work is anything but stuff in a Procrustean bed.
This morning I picked up Walker Evans's
American Photographs and started re-reading the comments on it by Lincoln Kirstein (if you don't know who Lincoln is you probably ought to find out).
"A superficial ease of operation has rendered the camera the dilettante's delight. It is both simpler and cleaner to make bad photographs than it is to make bad paintings." and further: "Sighting ... through a little window and clicking a small key are obviously child's play, and the ensuing childish results offer the vastest possibilities for innocent amusement. . ."
This, of course, was long before digital point-and-shoots and the cellphone swelled this kind of activity to a torrent of ho- hum garbage and selfies.
The problem we see in Street Showcase is not people trying to cram stuff into a definition. It's a problem of gross ignorance of the definition. There's a bunch of stuff here in Street Showcase that would go just fine in User Critiques. That includes your girl with head in the clouds. It's an interesting picture but it's a long way from street photography.
Which is why I'd recommend strongly getting rid of Landscape Showcase and Street Showcase. I see plenty of stuff in Landscape Showcase that obviously isn't landscape. A picture, for instance, of tree bark is a hell of a long way from landscape, though it'd go just fine in User Critiques, which, you might have noticed studiously avoids categories. Ivo's "color exercise" picture of women is street, but it's exceedingly bad street. It would go better in User Critiques where it wouldn't be trying to fit a genre Ivo obviously knows nothing about.
I keep hearing about how out of date my idea of street photography -- actually of photography in general -- is. But I have yet to see anybody post a picture that purports to be a convincing and worthwhile advancement from the kind of work Atget, HCB, Frank, Walker Evans or Ansel Adams, did. Yes, we have better color nowadays. (Big f...ing deal.) In general we have better equipment, so in many cases we can beat these guys in important things like "sharpness." (Another big f...ing deal.) What makes a great photograph or a great painting or a great poem or a great musical composition isn't sharpness or color. It's what I'll call the soul that went into it. In most cases, if you're struck by something with the soul that shines out of Ansel's "Moonlight over Hernandez" you don't say to yourself: "Wow! That's really sharp." or "Wow! What great color." You don't say anything. You Just accept the gift.