To say Street Photography is only Street Photography when you candidly steal a shot with or without your subjects permission would be ridiculous. There are many different ways of capturing
souls Street Photography… There are also different types of Street Photography. For instance, Urban Fragment Street Photography is the photography of inanimate objects in urban areas.
Some people have the misconception that for Street Photography to actually qualify as Street Photography there have to be people in it. There are entire Flickr groups whose sole purpose is to showcase urban fragment Street Photography (here’s one). So if your thing isn’t taking photos of unsuspecting people then fear not, there is still room for you in the Street Photography ranks. I have to warn you though… Urban fragment photography or less importantly sounding, inanimate object photography, is the stepping stone to photographing real-live humans.
Come to think of it,that’s kind of the funny thing about photographers… Or really, artists in general. Nobody likes to be told what their art is or is not but they certainly have strong feelings about others art (or photography in this case). What do you think? Is urban fragment Street Photography actually Street Photography?
Wikipedia defines Street Photography as:
photography that features the human condition within public places and does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. The subject of the photograph might be absent of people and can be an object or environment where the image projects a decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic.
So if the object doesn’t have to be human but still needs to “project a decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic” does that mean the images in this article would or would not qualify? Could Wikipedia be wrong (insert sarcastic tone please)? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.