OK, this is further to the discussion here and elsewhere on what constitutes
Street. I'll post this here where footfall although sparse does exist. As I've said elsewhere I've long understood the concept and appreciate the work of those who shaped the genre, although I do despise the term. I would also add that not all work by those accepted as founders of the genre actually fits that genre. Over the years I've heard many definitions from the uninformed to the utterly bizarre. Ambiguity and human interaction are undoubtedly key, but I am open to flexibility and more inclusivity. No genre stands still in time. I'll post a few images which could possibly stretch boundaries.
The image below has ambiguity in spades. Is the child interacting with me, the photographer, in a positive or negative way? Can interaction between the subjects within the image and the photographer ever be acceptable in
Street or is this going against a principle of stealth and anonymity?
The next image has little human interaction, but there is a sense of ambiguity and mystery: a puzzle.
The next has no human interaction, but plenty of ambiguity.
The next has plenty of ambiguity and human interaction, again between the subjects and the photographer.
And please note, not a street in sight!
There may well be those here who would baulk at placing these image into the genre
Street, hell, I'm not even sure I would, but I do feel none of these images fit comfortably with other genres such as documentary, portraiture, environment and travelogue. Sadly,what I do see all too often is poor photography masquerading as
Street.