Seems like it, yes. Although I have to disagree. I don't think you actually read the essay. He doesn't have any grand ideas about his own work as he lumped his own work into his critique calling it out also. I think too many photographers have too precious egos to be honest. It doesn't hurt to like something other than you own stuff once in a while and to just read something and just take it for what it is without being critic of the year. Anyway, I think I'll sign off. I get the wrong vibe here.

I didn't say it proved anything. And I doubt he thinks his work has anything to do with HCB (which is who I think you meant) as there are literally no similarities, if you really know HCB photography. If anything I guess Sweet is more closely related to Cohen. Anyway I just said I liked his stuff because it's edgy and different. Why is everyone so angry on this forum? I'm new here, but already think maybe I am in the wrong place. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

Finally found this: https://www.photographytalk.com/michaelsweet

I don't know, I did track down some of his work and I quite like it actually. I wouldn't call it crap certainly. He has a lot of originality at least, go to give him that. He uses a disposable most of the time for god sake! That's cool. I don't know, in the end, his work is different and that's what I like about it. The real crap is the stuff everybody makes that all looks the same. check him out for yourself: Michael Ernest Sweet (was the best link I could find, seems he has no website that I could find, but the net is full of his stuff.. tons of interviews etc. Also this place in Paris that sells his work). Also some books on Amazon. I think he might be a new addition to my list.

That is perhaps one of his best points in this piece, no one can take any criticism about their work, it's compliments or nothing. Any criticism is termed bashing and hateful. So people who make crap photographs get encouraged to continue making their crap and round and round we go. I guess people have always made crap photographs, but again as Michael Sweet points out people now make crap and try to become famous, to publish books of it and sell it in galleries and become instagram sensations. Before the ego explosion most bad photographers were real hobbyists and they stayed that way.

Maybe, depends on what his work is like. I don't know it. As for the article seems like maybe you're not alone in your opinion, although the article did get nearly 6K Facebook likes! Anyway, I still think he's right. Cheers! I'm new here too, seems like a lot of good discussion on this site

I just came across this article, although I know it's a bit old now. Street Photography Has No Clothes

I find it to be spot on about the state of things in this genre of photography. Yes, it's harsh, but someone had to step up and say these things. Where is street photography headed? Does it have a future?

Also, anyone know this Michael Ernest Sweet guy? Anyone know his own photography? Just wondering.