No, there is still a lot of photos out there simply because street photographers aren't doing anything wrong. Of course someone can make a legal case, but that doesn't matter if they do not win. Time and time again, courts err on the side of the photographer. Even in privacy-laden France, there have been court cases that have ruled in favour of the photographer, citing that French society would be worse off without these documents of life. Street photographers can have success even and yet most won't bat an eye. Street photography is a valid form of artistic expression and societal documentation.
I'm sorry, but if I don't get to decide whether or not I am making art, then nobody gets to decide. What is and isn't art is so subjective and no two people every agree 100% on what is and isn't considered art. There isn't a government regulated handbook on what is considered art and what isn't. So in the end, it is in fact up to the individual, whether or not they consider what they're doing to be art. It shouldn't be of consequence whether or not someone else thinks their work is art or not. If an artist thinks they're making art, then they're making art. That's the only reasonable way to decide if something is objectively art or not.
News agencies around the world routinely publish snapshots from newsworthy scenes around the world, many times it is clear that consent was not arranged. Yet no legal action happens because it is editorial. Same reason why nobody gets all huffy if they happen to be in The Modern Century. If anything, that would be an honour.