I agree that the attraction of this sort of thing is more conceptual than visual. It's art that's about art, and that's a fair amount of what's on the contemporary scene. As such it requires knowledge of a certain amount of context to appreciate, limiting its real audience. I'm not that enthusiastic, really, about this work in particular (mainly because I think it isn't really that original, even if one is well disposed toward it), but I can see where it's coming from, and there is a place for it.
I also don't think this work is terribly effective in a solo show. Unless it is exhibited next to the works it may be responding to--say as part of a show on the history of landscape--it is hard to see why it is so challenging. One often reads on internet discussion lists that people are tired of St. Ansel and his imitators. Well, this is the response, and I wouldn't be surprised if it sent a few of Adams' detractors running back to Half Dome.
All art requires some effort on the part of the viewer to appreciate it fully, and I think there's something to be gained, as Jorge said, in trying to figure out why something I don't necessarily like has a certain kind of appeal to others.