I know I can't speak for everyone, but I'd hope most folks here would join me in thanking Policar. I appreciate the great insights into photography as art.
Yep. For my dollar (tongue in cheek), this discussion is more interesting than the picture being discussed
Rather than the music analogy, I'll liken it (the print) to another printed medium.
It's hard to freehand a square. You may make something look fairly square, but getting perpendicular corners with straight equal length sides is impossible. A good draftsman likely employs technique that will allow him to get closer to square than I. And size matters. You'll get a better square that's 1mm on the side than one that's 100mm. 1 meter on the side? Forget about it. So, while an expert freehanding a 1m square may have great execution, at the end of the day, he produces a square on a piece of paper. Well done, but patently uninteresting.
Gursky clearly had a concept, and he executed it well (with perhaps the exception of sloppy duplication). However, it's very boring to look at.
And, again, none are that interesting except when printed HUGE.http://www.its.caltech.edu/~squires/gursky/pics/gursky_chicago.jpg
That one is.