On Transgressive Art
The invocation of ‘the transgressive’ in one’s art is a tricky thing to negotiate. On one hand, the category exists for a reason. There are certainly things that should, at the very least, generally be avoided in one’s art. Consider art that engenders the feeling of hate for the viewer. On this premise, we could probably all agree that such art should probably not be produced.
Then consider that the subject of that hate is, perhaps, Harvey Weinstein, or the infamous Jeffrey Epstein. The equation suddenly becomes more complex. On this premise, we would not reach such a consensus. And the question of art that engenders ‘hate,’ and whether we should reject such art on such a broad premise alone becomes a bit more nuanced, and perhaps less binary.
So, invocation of the transgressive does not necessarily precede its illegitimacy: we engage with different forms of the transgressive in our daily lives in some way or another. And we enjoy films like Django Unchained (2012), because although Django’s violent out lash against his oppressors is undeniably ‘transgressive,’ it is justified in the film’s moral cosmology.
I’ve been thinking about this question a lot recently. An old friend’s musical projects, in different ways, invoke the transgressive as a primary function of their existence. Often, in ways that I should not be comfortable with. And while I’ve disengaged with them in the current day, I think back on the genuine chaos that their music was constructed in. And I’ve had to come to terms with what I’ve known to be true about what I can honestly say was one of the first albums that spoke to my adolescent angst: that, in many instances where the category is invoked within the project, there is no good reason for it. It exists simply to be transgressive, and increasingly confusing.
This disposition does not make for meaningful art. It makes for the opposite: meaningless art. And in the years since they released their first project: which was genuinely exciting for me, as I was aware of them before they constructed their artistic persona, it has slowly broken down. Their two projects compete with each other for their attention. And unfortunately, it seems the far more transgressive one has won out.
But then I think of the lyrics. The memories I made to them, at a time when they genuinely spoke to me in my moment of extreme pain, and suddenly the equation is confusing once again.
‘Free flights to Kuwait ‘cause she’s a flight attendant, same night we hit L.A. and lived that night again,’ read the lyrics to the original version of a song on an album which has a cover that invokes imagery that most people would find unacceptable. And as I’ve grown older, wiser, and more mature, I now understand that there are simply sub-categories within the realm of the transgressive that can rarely, if ever, be invoked in good taste.
‘OG said ‘X’ so I’ma get it out the ocean, went from London to the Bay, then bought a flight back to New Orleans,’ read the lyrics to the original version of a song on an album with perhaps less visually shocking art, but still ‘iffy’ at best.
And the most frustrating thing? There is quite literally no reason to invoke the imagery they did on the cover of what was lyrically their most raw, and personal album yet. For their Soundcloud singles, they often use art their fans send them to ‘up the ante.’ There is no other reason, no other deeper meaning than that.
So, I struggle.
When I knew them, they were kind, thoughtful, and incredibly caring. It doesn’t align with the imagery they invoke on their album art, and I hope that they do not make the arbitrary decision to continue to invoke the images they do.
‘Baby, it’s been a minute and a half since I’ve been home. Since I lost my brother to a bad batch of dope,’ read the lyrics to an unreleased song that samples ‘Just Be Good To Me’ by The S.O.S. Band. But however compelling their lyrics may be, I am unsure if I am able to reconcile their invocations of the transgressive in their art. It’s pervasive, and at this point it is a flaw that undermines their musical talent.
They will always have a friend in me. And I believe that they have figured this out in recent months. My hope? That they mature, and grow into the talented musician they have the potential and the musical talent to be.
Does everything need to be transgressive in some way in 2025? Or is it still acceptable to, say, attend the rerelease of Joe Wright’s 2005 adaptation of ‘Pride & Prejudice’ and enjoy it on its own merits? Those being: the virtues of beauty, of love, of happiness, and of humility.