Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Now I, Crippled Monkey, may not know much about art, but (as the saying goes), I know what I like. And what I like best is when a big artistic disagreement blows up.

London's is currently playing host to an exhibition entitled . This features the works of so-callled 'outsider artists', many of whom were affected by mental illness.

In Tuesday's edition of , art critic Richard Doment laid into the exhibition in no uncertain terms. His main criticism is that the exhibition presents the work of "the psychotic, the autistic, the criminally insane or the merely untrained" alongside that of mainstream artists: Dorment says that it is "objectionable ... to present the art of people with severe mental illness alongside the work of Francis Bacon, Joan Miró or Francis Picabia, and then to propose that there is no essential difference between the two, that both are simply different manifestations of modernity". He even goes so far as to claim that the show is "based on a false premise and proselytising for an evil idea". Blimey, there's a man who doesn't mince his words.

So in yesterday's , Jon Thompson, the co-curator of the exhibition, got his right to reply: "It is a common mistake to ally outsider art with that of the mentally ill: in reality, mental illness accounts for only a small proportion of it. It is also a mistake to draw a distinction between mainstream and outsider artists on the basis of 'training'".

It's an interesting debate, and worth checking out both articles in full, as well as from last Thursday's Guardian. If you've gone to the exhibition, or are planning to, let us know your opinion in the comments.