This is part of a much fuzzier problem, recognizing the contribution of art and artists to human knowledge. That art is a form of knowledge is undeniable. Scholars study it and produce work called ‘research’ based on it. Art, including poetry, is cited as fundamental data in many different areas of inquiry, not as natural material awaiting study, but as the product of human intellect. Yet our academic registers corral it in a separate category, utterly divorced from knowledge. Weird!

Poetry is for the self, and for its journaling of the world in the Emersonian sense. For Wallace Stevens it was a research. For most it is therapeutic. But we need writers who investigate its thread through history and the history of psychology. The place it has held for the ages. This place is at times more revealing of its interpreter's thinking than of the poetry itself, of course. Similarly in music, we have theorists and musicologists dealing with interplay between internal evidence and sociological evidence in the field called ethnomusicology, the latest arm of which explores the analysis of computer-game music!

Onwards...

Their database is very limited and their system is rather rigid. established journals are missing. RG doesn't mind I sent them several times messages about it. It has to do with ownership of databases with lists I guess.

@Richard, your response to your question (and i am fully in sympathy with what you have said) still leaves art in the realm of data, not of knowledge. That seems to me a problem. Music, visual and written art become knowledge only when they are analyzed or quoted by scholars. In themselves, they remain completely off the map of knowledge. Isn't this false to our experience of them?