[Tycho]

I don't think it comes to that. My working definition of art is 'human creativity in matters beyond functional necessity' - and the point (ideally) would be to selectively present phenomena/experience for the betterment of the audience.

Here black and white images of everyday urban life have been selected as subject matter. Why? (obviously the images are well framed, but is that all there is to this art? Mechanical_Fish's answer above is reasonable, though)

[thrdOriginal]

This is why I recommended Clive Bell: for him the subject matter is irrelevant and what matters is significant form - that combination of colors and shapes that gives rise to an aesthetic experience. Many would say that achieving this aesthetic experience itself is the point. Alternatively, others argue that the subject of art (in this case urban life) allow one to get at the capital-t Truth and meaning of a thing or culture. Heidegger's "The Origin of the Work of Art" examines this with regards to Van Gogh's "A Pair of Shoes," also an interesting read. Of course the real point for anyone is deeply personal, and if you're questioning what that point is, for you there probably isn't one. And that's ok too.

[Tycho]

That's why I asked the question - I genuinely wanted to know what other people valued in this collection. Just because I asked doesn't mean I don't have my own reasons for valuing/not-valuing it. I encourage anyone reading to say what they liked about it. Even just a poll of 'do you like them for the content' vs 'do you like them for the prettyness' would be interesting: sometimes it's just good to know what other people are thinking.