The most talked about event in the North in the past few months has been the exhibition of paintings by Michael Stone at the Engine Room Gallery. The owners of the building in which the gallery is housed were going to stop the show. This brought up the old question of censorship that somehow was resolved between gallery and owners.

What was not clear was how or why someone with as limited artistic track record as Stone had gained the opportunity to have a solo show. What criteria did the gallery use? Why was he selected when there are so many artists working here with good track records looking for solo exhibitions? Could it be that Stone's notoriety as a terrorist was more important than his ability to paint? Perhaps Stone will join the Tracey Emin's of this world where it is more important what they do or have done than what they create. Stone joins the Brit Pack! It is just a pity that he was a Loyalist rather than a Republican as that really would have been headline-grabbing.

Stone's and Ermin's work sells well. The fact that they are infamous means that society wants their work. They may be at opposite ends of the artistic spectrum but this type of society art sells as does all society art unless someone got their marketing wrong.

I was in Berlin recently (bear with me, it's relevant) wandering through what is supposed to be a district of exciting galleries. All I could see was more society art; this time it was art made for society with no conviction or belief. Then it was off to Berlin's Contemporary Art Museum. Dan Flavin, Joseph Beuys, etc., etc. No, don't get me wrong, some of the work was good but it was so predictable. Curation at this level is simple. Download one or two of the most expensive artists from Western culture, check if they are still alive or only recently dead - well it is supposed to be a contemporary museum - and go shopping. For curation at this level all you need is money.

So with negative thoughts in my mind about fame and fortune in the art world I headed off to see the Caravaggio exhibition. Here was someone in his day famous for killing people, drunkenness and sex orgies. Could he be an Ermin and Stone all in one? I walked grumpily through galleries that were supposed to give a context to the exhibition but really only padded out the show. Then I stood in front of the actual work. Fan fucking tastic.

Here was work that brought goose bumps to your skin. The hair on the back of my neck still tingles when I think of experience. The work was badly lit and surrounded by other work selected by a condescending schoolteacher type. None of this mattered: I simply stood in awe. How did we descend from this to society art, the predictable, home furnishings and roadside dross?

I travelled from Berlin back again to Poland, a country I always love to work in. This time I lived in the country while working each day in a small town on a simple show. No pretence, just quiet satisfaction working with interested and interesting people. Where else would I be allowed to carry around 2,500-year-old burial urns and use them as part of a contemporary artwork? It is not just a question of permission. It is also the fact that it was natural to combine the artefacts from the museum into a contemporary work.