Photography belongs both to the realms of reality and imagination: although it sometimes favours one over the other, it never quite relinquishes its hold on either. Little does it matter that a photograph can be printed out a thousand times, thus depriving the original of its unique status. For me, it is sufficient that no two photographers are likely to create an identical image, and it is this which sets photography on a par with more established artistic disciplines such as sculpture or painting when it comes to inventiveness and originality. And now, although the idea that photography could be art at one time appeared absurd to many people, it is without a doubt our foremost and most immediately accessible means of artistic expression. In no way is it undermined by the fact that everyone has a camera these days and can take excellent photos without formal instruction. To draw comparisons between painting and photography as art forms is to miss the point; they are so very different. Moreover, photographs capture reality, and therefore can often have a far greater impact on the viewer.

This same argument that opposes the classification of the photographer as artist because they capture reality also suggests that there is no artistic merit in capturing a moment in time that shows real life plainly. Believing this argument suggests that the work of street photographers is non-artistic.