>>3484903>Everything has already been done before.
First of all that's not true and secondly you're just being thick if you're pretending that there can be no difference in the degree of originality or unoriginality. Is taking a picture of you pushing the tower of Pisa the same as taking a picture of a field with mountains and pink clouds in the background? Surely not because the first one leaves 0 room for originality, while the second one might just turn out a great picture that's visually stimulating.
Is taking a picture of a church next to some misty woods the same as another fucking shot of a hasselblad's viewfinder showing the same shot of the horseshoe bend from the same angle as you've seen a million times? Of course not. The church with the misty trees might look like every other shot of churches with misty trees, but you took that shot and anyone would tell you that it looks pleasing, that you chose your angle and light right and ended up with a pretty picture. And that's all that picture is supposed to do. The picture of the hasselblad is trying to go one step beyond that by using a prop, but it's so specific that instead of a sense of nostalgia all you can remember are all those other shots that look just like it. It failed it its attempt to make you feel a specific thing by using a prop, so it failed at its main mission.
Pictures of homeless people and asians making street food and pushing trollies will fail their main mission 99% of the time because they're trying to look like they're making a statement, but really that statement has been made a million times before. You can't evaluate street photography purely based on aesthetics because that's not the point of it.
Your image might work as part of a series, if you can make the narrative be something other than "the hustling and bustling life of x crowded asian city" or "culture shock" or "society and class and shiet". But on its own it fails at what it's supposed to do.