In his blog this week, Austin Kleon said, incorporating a quote from Martha Graham, “That’s the thing about new work, it’s not really your job to judge it, you just keep the channel open and let the stuff come…” My initial response, based on my experiences as a photographer and stage director was complete disagreement. My experience has been that artists are constantly making judgements, sometimes large, sometimes small, sometimes correct, and sometimes incorrect.

After reexamining the Kleon quote, I finally decided that I had missed a key phrase: “new work,” and realizing that he didn’t really mean not to judge it, but rather not to judge its value while it was new. He was specifically talking about a series of collages that he was working on and had not yet decided what to do with them. But, I would imagine, that in creating those collages, he was making many small judgements about what to add to add and what not include in particular collages, involving decisions on what colors and images to use to make the visual points he was trying to make. If, after dozens of judgements were made, he didn’t quite know what to do with the finished product(s), that’s understandable, given that it was a new form of collage for him.

Of course, whether it’s new work or not, the artist’s job is to judge it—to decide what shape it will take, and ultimately what to do with it. This, of course, does not mean that those decisions should be made immediately. Here I agree with Kleon and Graham: with new work, the artist’s job is to “keep yourself open and aware to the urges that motivate you. Keep the channel open.” That being said, the artist must make hundreds of judgements just to create the work.

The ultimate disposition of the work is something that comes later, and that decision too can be correct or incorrect. One is reminded of the young Stephen King trashing the manuscript to his first published novel, Carrie, only to have it rescued by his wife, who then encouraged him to finish it.

The goal of the artist is, of course, to make the work the best it can be made. Along the way are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of decisions, some small and some quite large, that determine the ultimate shape of the work. These are necessary if the work is to be realized. In some arts, directing, for example, it seems that making such judgements constitutes the bulk of the work to be done. They are not always the correct choices, but they have to be made, and made in a timely fashion if the work is to go forward. Sometimes, one is afforded the luxury of revisiting a decision and correcting it, but that is not always the case, so one learns to make the best possible decision in the moment and move the work toward completion.

So while artists, when moving in the uncharted waters of new work, must “keep the channel open and let the stuff come,” they must also exercise their judgement and make judicious decisions as they develop those new ideas. After all, the final product is, in fact, the result of the artist’s judgements.

We seem to have a pornography problem in the public schools of Texas. Or, that is at least what the governor and several state legislators say.  This past Monday, the Governor wrote the executive director of the Texas Association of School Boards, stating that “a growing number of parents are becoming increasingly alarmed about some of the books and other content found in public school libraries that are extremely inappropriate in the public education system.” He goes on to say that “the most flagrant examples include clearly pornographic images and substance that have no place in the Texas public education system.” Of course, he provides no specific examples of this content. A spokesperson for the Texas Association of School Boards said that the group was confused about why the letter was sent to them, because it “has no regulatory authority over school districts and does not set standards for instructional materials, including library books.”

And last week state representative Jeff Cason asked the Texas Attorney General to investigate “sexually explicit material in public schools.” He went on to ask the Attorney General to “launch a statewide investigation into that [Gender Queer] and other books that may ‘violate the Penal Code in relation to pornography, child pornography and decency laws, as well as the legal ramifications to school districts that approved these types of books.’”

One suspects that the Governor and Rep Cason were climbing on board the culture war bandwagon that seems to have been set in motion by state representative Matt Krause, who chairs the Texas House’s General Investigating Committee, and is a candidate for state attorney general. In October, Krause sent a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of school programs at the Texas Education Agency and several school district superintendents demanding that school districts across the state report whether any of the books on the list of 850 titles are in their classrooms or libraries He also directed that the districts identify any other books that could cause students “guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex or convey that a student, by virtue of their race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”

The Texas State Teachers Association was quick to respond: “This is an obvious attack on diversity and an attempt to score political points at the expense of our children’s education. What will Rep. Krause propose next? Burning books he and a handful of parents find objectionable?”

And about that list of titles—Danika Ellis of bookriot.com did an analysis of the list and discovered several interesting things: there are no reasons given for books being on the list, even the ones that are listed twice. Ellis broke down the presumed reasons for books being on the list as follows: LGBTQ 62.4%; Race and Racism 8.3%; Sex Education 14.1%; Miscellaneous (including pregnancy, abortion—not Sex Education, and Unknown 15.2%. 58.89% of the books are fiction; 41.1% are nonfiction. Ellis also notes that there were several notable titles on the list, including one Pulitzer Prize winner and several other award-winning books. She also cites what she calls the “most disturbing trend” on the list as the challenge to books about human and student rights.

There is, of course, no indication—at least that I can find—of where the list came from. At least one article suggests that it was cut and pasted together from a variety of sources, and probably never properly vetted.

Perhaps some of you are wondering why I have taken the time, energy, and space to report on what can be gleaned from a few internet sources. The answer is simple: when books begin to be removed from the shelves, it’s not only the potential readers who are hurt. Certainly, readers probably suffer most, particularly if they are seeking information that has become banned. But writers suffer as well, and by extension, all artists. We all are diminished when our works are forbidden their potential audiences. So in case you missed this, I wanted you all to know about it. Book banning represents an existential threat to artists, and we need to be aware.