Today I would like to consider an article by Jeri Kroll, from Flinders University, titled Creative Writing as Research and the dilemma of Accreditation: How do we value what we do? This paper is part of my current studies and got me to thinking about what we value and why!
The context of the article is broadly about funding for creative arts in universities as compared to the funding of scientific research. He asks some provocative questions and suggests that the only current measure is that “funding is proof of worth”. In the broader community, I wonder, how do we decide that a piece of writing or a work of art is of outstanding value unless there is a monetary value attached to it. Is it a case of my writing is only good if a publisher agrees to publish it?
Krol says that “Creative writing has a range of purposes and benefits for the community. It provides entertainment and intellectual stimulation, but in a larger sense, it preserves and promotes our heritage”. What do you think of that comment? To me it seems that writing can be as snapshot of our lives and the communities we live in today, in the same way that Dickens wrote about the society he lived in.
Bringing the debate of art vs science back to the here and now – what is supported most in our society? An Arts Degree or a Science Degree? In my experience the scientists can be elitist about their field and look down on the value of the Arts. How can the Arts gain greater credibility and value in our society? I don’t know the answers to these questions, I just wonder about them. Surely there is a place where art and science can become one and be viewed as beautiful as well as intrinsically valuable!
thanks for reading
Reference – Jeri Kroll, TEXT vol 6 No1