'Bird Lives' by Mike Stanley.

Mike Stanley is an artist living and working in Kingston. His entry in the exhibition Jamaican Biennial 2006, titled 'Bird Lives (Ornithology 2)', is composed of acrylic paint on paper. Here he discusses his work with Dr. Jonathan Greenland, executive director of the National Gallery of Jamaica.

JG: Please talk us through your work in the biennial exhibition.

MS: I'm hoping people will know that 'Bird' was the nickname of the famous jazz musician Charlie Parker. When he died people wrote all over the walls of New York 'Bird Lives'. I think this kind of graffiti is a testament to his importance as a musician and as a musical phenomenon. The image itself has rather bird-like images that are also shaped a little like a cross. A long time ago, in the 1980s, I did a picture called 'Ornithology'; you see, ornithology is not only the study of birds but was also the title of a tune by Charlie Parker. Anyway, this old work was destroyed in a fire. The use of metallic paint in this one makes it looks atmospheric, or star-like, and the crosses against this metallic background reminded me of birds. So the whole thing came together and I called it 'BirdLives, Ornithology 2'.

Is jazz often the inspiration for your work?

I sometimes listen to it when I work but more as background music. But I wouldn't over-emphasise the influence of music on my work. It isn't the case that I only do pictures about jazz. However, in a sense the way jazz musicians operate - taking a theme and then playing around with it - is the way I operate with paint. Improvisation is very important in my work. I think of the formal elements in painting as being like a theme in music that can be improvised upon. Jackson Pollock, the American abstract expressionist painter, was also a big jazz fan. There is a famous film of Pollock painting outdoors to a Charlie Parker track. I suppose I have been influenced by that era.

Your painting is very exuberant. How do you work?

In some ways I am an action painter. I mostly work on the floor, I mostly don't use a brush but sometimes I do, I use sponges, I dribble the paint, I squirt it, I use a palette knife ... I often puddle the paint on and then stain the canvas. The canvas soaks it up like blotting paper.

How do you know when the work is finished? When you look at it and it just looks right?

Good question. When I can't think of anything else to do then it is finished. I ask myself: 'What else would make this picture better?' And if I can't think of anything else then it is finished. But having said that, sometimes I put them aside and then I have an idea later on. I think if something is bothering you and you think you should do this or that then you should do it. But what does 'finished' really mean? Willem De Kooning is the famous one for this - he would work on his pictures and work on them some more even after exhibiting them, and Turner would even touch up paintings during exhibitions!

What are your other major artistic influences?

The British abstract painter John Hoyland was my teacher and mentor at the Chelsea School of Art in London during the 1960s. He is still a major influence. I was drawn to himbecause of his relationship with a style of painting that I was interested in: namely, the post-war New York School of the 1950s onwards. But I am also interested in what Europe had to offer, particularly the French artist Matisse with his use of colour. Colour is one of my major preoccupations.

I like Picasso too. In fact, I find the relationship of these two artists very interesting. I once did a painting that refers to them both called Sol y Sombre (Sun and Shadows) - the sun refers to Matisse and the shadows to Picasso. I find that Picasso often used to struggle with the dark side, so to speak, in his work.

Some people see them as two sides of the same coin - the lighter, more decorative Matisse and the egotistical, protean Picasso. Are you drawn to one over the other?

There is a very interesting book written by Francoise Gilot, who was married to Picasso but who knew Matisse. Towards the end of Matisse's life they used to go and visit Matisse because they lived close by. And she speaks of the kind of relationship between them - a rivalry I would say. Remember, Matisse was at least 10 years older. Whatever else he said, Picasso had a great regard for Matisse and he admitted he couldn't work with colour like Matisse. He said something like: "Matisse's colour comes from his belly." Whereas Picasso's work is much more graphic, black and white, exploring space rather than colour. I always thought Matisse was the more important artist really.

Because you feel more kinship?

Definitely. He was more of a painterly artist. Also, Matisse stressed the more positive, celebratory side of life and I have always believed painting should be life-enhancing. I don't consciously dwell in the negative areas - but they can't be ignored and I'm sure it comes out subconsciously.

Do your colours mean anything to you?

I don't really think too much about that. It might in the sense of thinking about the title of the picture - I usually name my paintings afterwards. I usually think of my paintings as 'Thegrey one', 'The green one' etc. The colours must have some kind of emotional meaning I suppose. At certain times particular colours have more importance. I remember asking John Hoyland why he chose particular colours over others and he said: "You know, when you get up in the morning and you pull out a red shirt and you think No, and then pick a blue one. It's like that." The colour has to make sense to you inside. It must mean something but I can't articulate it. It is a misreading to read too much into the depth of it all - painting for me is like a job.

You don't get too pretentious about your art?

I'm just trying to knock out another one - it's what I like to do! It's like a musician who just wants to play at any opportunity. That is the nice thing about the older jazz musicians - none of them had arts council grants - they played because they wanted to, they had to.

What do you think of the Jamaican art scene?

In Jamaica, the art scene and the galleries are very market-orientated. There are certain advantages to this, being able to sell work and survive not the least of them. The downside is the extent to which art is just another commodity. I think of paintings as a language for articulating important ideas and values. Paintings are much too important to just match the drapes or look good over the couch. Another thing is that it would be good if the level of art criticism in Jamaica was a bit better and a lot more rigorous. I often get the feeling that people are writing things just to finish them. It comes over in the standard of the writing. It's a shame because I know there are good writers out there.

Someone may have to pay them better. Do you have any advice for younger Jamaican artists?

This might sound awful but: Get out of Jamaica! Jamaica is a wonderful place and I wouldn't live anywhere else, but I think that if they haven't travelled, they need to find out there is a whole world out there. Jamaica is a small place and an island, and if you haven't been away you can get the feeling that Jamaica is the world. In my teaching at UTech I always try to give them access to international art, using videos and the Internet, etc., but it is just not the same thing at all as travelling and experiencing other cultures.

Jamaica Biennial 2006 runs through March 12, 2007. Please call the National Gallery at 922 1561 for more details or email us at natgalja@cwjamaica.com.