Last week, the popular film culture website Cinematical asked readers the question: “Can you enjoy a film if you ‘hate’ the filmmaker?” They then proceeded to detail the questionable and often abhorrent off-screen activities of several prominent moviemakers — racial epithet-spewing Mel Gibson; Victor Salva, the Jeepers Peepers and Powder Helmer who was convicted of molesting a child on a film set; and Roman Polanski, whose transgressions and flee from the law are well documented. It then asked whether their actions clouded readers’ judgment of their films.

The queries produced much online discussion and rightfully so. They force readers to confront their own opinions about art appreciation. Can a film, painting, book or any other work be enjoyed objectively while knowing its creator’s past? Can the artist be separated from his or her art?

These questions sting right at the heart of Almost There: A Portrait of Peter Anton, currently running at Intuit: The Center for Intuitive and Outside Art.

The fascinating exhibit displays the work of Peter Anton, a 78-year-old East Chicago, Indiana resident who has documented his life in 12 thick, colorful scrapbooks dubbed the “Almost There” books. The exhibit displays the scrapbook’s contents — an amalgam of press clippings, pen and pencil drawings, writings and more collected over 60 years — in addition to Anton’s oil and pastel paintings.

The portrait details a life obsessed with pop culture and entertainment: articles about working in youth talent shows in the ’50s and ’60s; photos and drawings of celebrities and politicians; paintings of summer festivals and theaters; strange hand-drawn cartoons; shelves of VHS tapes with spines decorated to reflect their contents, everything from Top Gun and Titanic to specials on The Beatles, George Wallace and Napoleon. Interspersed between the razzle-dazzle lies a narrative of poverty, tragedy, illness and dashed hopes, though, all related through family photos, hand-written notes and more.

Co-curators Dan Rybicky and Aaron Wickenden met Anton drawing pastel portraits for money at Whiting, Indiana’s Pierogi Festival. This exhibit is an equal portrait of their four-year documentation of the aged artist, with photos of Anton’s home life with many cats in a decrepit, trash-filled-to-the-ceilings home displayed alongside his art. The combination provides an irresistible snapshot inside the world from which the art was spun.

But it also contains a startling omission.

Ten days after the exhibit opened, Rybicky and Wickenden learned that Anton was arrested, convicted and sentenced for “distributing obscene material to children” in 1980. This fact was unknown to the curators when the work was culled, and it is not reflected by Anton in his art — a curiosity considering his fastidious life documentation. It’s not surprising, though. Anton’s output is a reflection both real and imagined, and being guilty of such a crime obviously didn’t fit into the persona he chose to present to the public.

Intuit’s board of directors decided to allow the exhibit to remain unaltered with only a disclaimer explaining the discovery, hoping that the revelation would spurn further discussion of the art. It was a smart move.

Knowing this aspect of Anton’s past unquestionably alters perceptions of him as a person, calling into question his close work with children and a handwritten note saying that he was nicknamed “Peter Pan” for a desire to be with youth. Beyond the man, what about the art itself? If anything, the reveal adds a deeper dimension to the exhibit, one of subterfuge and denial. Whether it’s appreciated or not is up to the viewer.

---

By Phil Morehart
Posted: 01/27/2011 12:27 PM

Hi LS. Thanks for the comment and sorry for the delay in response. Anton was arrested, convicted and sentenced for distributing obscene material to children in 1980. And he hid this from the exhibition curators. Knowing all of this does alter perceptions of his work. However such perceptions are highly personal and subjective. His work can be taken at face value or skewed knowing of his past--your call.

---

By LS Morgan from South Chicago
Posted: 11/03/2010 3:01 AM

You say 'knowing this aspect of Mr. Antons past..." Can you elaborate on this to any depth? Or are you just going by 'the charges' and leaving it at that? With all due respect, this comes off as a tremendously complex issue, involving an equally complex person. There is more to this story- perhaps, you're the right person to dig a little deeper and tell that story? Or, maybe not. Maybe just sum it up with a sentence or two and draw a hasty conclusion... Whatever.

---

By Bonnie McGrath from South Loop
Posted: 09/06/2010 11:10 AM

In the hated-for-their-transgressions filmmakers category, you left out Woody Allen!