"Photographs should stand on their own" = ridiculous
"No photograph should benefit from its title" = ridiculous
"Art, by itself" = sheer nonsense
Context matters. Body of work matters. Putting things into perspective matters. History matters. Story matters. Human side matters.
Even the most barren of landscapes contains human element, and not one, but two: photographer and viewer. There is no such thing as "art, by itself"... to be defined and accepted as art, it requires an artist, critics, viewers, public, consensus, context, story, body of work, etc.
Historic context matters: Ansel is great not because his "art, by itself" is great, but because he was the first to do something different. From today's perspective, some of his work is quite mundane and, quite frankly, easily reproducible by iPhones.
The same goes for the lady photographer in the OP. I have not seen much of her work, nor I am much into street photography, but for God's sake do not judge her relevance by today's standards. When we are drowning today in a deluge of photographs of epic proportions, where even a Noah's Arc would not help, it is easy to dismiss a photo as "just another of...". Put it in the context of the time in which it was made, and it might just as well be unique, if not one of very few. There was a time when not everyone was a photographer, let alone street one, when photography required dedication and mastery, and even a certain element of magic (anyone who watched an image appear out of nowhere on a submerged white paper, under red light, will know what I am talking about). Photographs made under those circumstances should not be measured by the yardstick of today's Flickr crap.
A disclaimer: statements above, some of which are, of course, hyperboles, are meant for rhetoric purposes only and not to offend anyone personally