I think things - sights, works of art, whatever - only move you if you have an emotional connection with them. Ticking things off a list is never going to be quite as satisfying, because we don't respond the same way to any two different things.
So, for example, I have a real gut reaction to Francis Bacon's work. Not because I think it's beautiful (it's not - some of it is very distressing) but because I can respond to the pain and loss that he put into the work. I can identify with it, and through it, the artist and how he might have felt. Same with Van Gogh.
Whereas it's virtually impossible to have any kind of response to the Mona Lisa because a) we've all seen reproductions of it a million times before, and b) you can't get near it on your own. It's never personal. Art (and, by extension, how we look at things like architecture and landscape) is about how it makes you feel.
Amusingly, I also had a hugely emotional response to the fountains at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. I stood and watched it for over an hour, completely transfixed. I found it really moving and it's one of my go-to mental images when I meditate. To this day, I could not tell you why.
I always think of Donna Tartt's The Goldfinch with this sort of stuff. That's a work of art about a reaction to a work of art. A tiny little painting that most people would walk straight past, but to the protagonist (and presumably the author) it holds the greatest of meaning.