Street photography is not as easy as it looks like and it can cause very unpleasant problems. I often ask myself, which kind of humans become street photographers. Are they more observers or more interactive communication orientated people? Do they ask for permission or do they exploit people, which can't fight for their rights of privacy, because beggars, homeless people and drug users become "part of the street" and are not "part of the crowd" anymore? I respect the right to one's own picture, because I don't want to be photographed and absolutely not by strangers. So there is this duality between observing situations including a story – involving people – and keeping a respectful distance – involving rights –, which in some way – and in some states - would need the permission of everyone in the photograph.
Does the freedom of expression give everybody the right to do street photography without limits? Where are the lines between art, voyeurism, documentation and exploitation, if common people are involved, which can't fight for the right of their own picture like Caroline of Monaco did?
At last, the eternal question, what is art? Is art a decision of the artist? Yes and no, it's more or less a point of view. Very often it is a public decision or more and more often it becomes a decision by law, especially in cases of street photography.
So there is another question to be asked: Is there enough room for street photography within the limits of law, which are worldwide very different?
I don't know, do you?
I actually didn’t want to photograph this road worker at all. I took some pictures from a house nearby and he was watching me. His body language was begging to be photographed by me. When he couldn't lure me into it, he gave up and turned his back to me. He really had forgotten about his colleague in the sewer. That was the "Brutus"-moment to take the picture.
More or less the only real street photography I have done so far.