Chris Marker at Peter Blum

This is the filmmaker who made La Jetee. A legend, yadda yadda, but readers might want to know how the iconic still photography in that and other earlier works compare to what he’s doing now. Does his careful style of framing and eye for vernacular street scenes make the jump from “quasi-documentary” to “urban flaneur” modes of working? How much of the magic of his photos lay in chemical darkroom technology? That sort of thing.
From his Wikipedia bio I see he was a digital pioneer, and made an “art” CD-ROM in the ’90s. Another avenue to explore in writing about him is how such (now dated) media have informed current so-called (and likely-soon-to-be-dated) image aggregators such as Tumblr, and where he fits in the spectrum.
Reviewing cliched writing in the press release is usually kind of a low blow. You are privileged to be in New York seeing the actual work–others have to travel here.

Everything you’re saying is true, and insightful to boot; you’re good at this sort of thing, so thanks. If I’d written a long-form review, not mentioning any of that would have been a failure. This isn’t meant to be a full review, though, because frankly I don’t think this work is worth it; it really is just bad. That’s all I needed to convey to the reader, because it’s more important that they not waste their time than that they be prepared for an in-depth discussion about this work that will never happen. There is stuff to say about this work, but that’s mostly insofar as there is stuff to say generally; this is a below-average segue into that conversation. That’s all very harsh, of course, and I feel bad about that, but it’s honest.

Maybe Marker’s history means he’s grandfathered in, but from what I’ve read about him I don’t think he’d like to be considered that way. On the other hand, to hit another of your points, I’m not sure comparing him to image aggregators would have worked either; even with a digital pedigree, there’s nothing in the exhibition that brings them to mind as anything other than an insult.

Slightly related (I only realized this wasn’t actually in response to anything after I’d written it): The Photoshopping hints at Marker’s digital interests (they’re all digital photos, it should be said), but it’s ineffective – I was aware of it, but in almost every case it was more of a distraction than an enhancement. Besides which, as I stated, Marker wasn’t dealing with any of the issues surrounding Photoshop and digital editing that other artists and writers have brought to our attention since at least 1994 (I’m thinking “The Reconfigured Eye”). If an element is neither contributing to the whole piece nor saying anything significant on its own (or even by its inclusion), it doesn’t belong there and the work is worse for having it.

I had high hopes, walked out very disappointed aside from the conversation I had with the girl holding the fort. I agree with Will, the photoshopping was a distraction very poorly done, the parallel with masterpieces was relevant to… well, I’m still trying to figure that one out.