I've been thinking about the whole aspect of what makes genuinely good photography - not photography that is just nice to look (say, a church, a flower, a bird, a sunset) but one that holds some sort real historic or artistic value.

Looking at the pulitzer prizes in photography I can see that instead of photography only holding one 'dimension', that of composure and photographic skill, they seem to be both that and tell stories of actual interesting events in the world. The 2017 winner in feature photography was a series of photos telling the story of some black kid surviving a shooting and recovering, going to school etc. It won because it is a: an interesting event and b: correctly photographed.

If these are the sorts of images that win prizes and gain the photographer international fame, then why are we wandering the streets doing 'street photography', shooting snapshits of randoms at a bus stop or some homeless fuck shooting ice with high bokeh. Seeing this has made me question whether every photo I have ever taken has actually been good, usually they're just photographs of the world around me with interesting composition, I feel like they are missing 50% of what a photograph should have, interesting subjects, action, controversy and stories.

Pic related is a photograph I hold in a really high regard which shows proof to what I am thinking. Every single fucking person on the internet has seen it, it was extremely controversial, it told a story. It has great composition, it has great subject separation. It is both a good photo, and an interesting one. Is this why it gained international fame?

What do you all think? Am I just a dumbass and am overthinking it?