Speaking up, speaking about

The recent reading I've been doing about artists and artists' voices was mostly published in the 70s - views of critics, views of artists, views of scholars. Yesterday on New York Sun's website, Kate Taylor published Artist's Own Words Can Drown Out Scholars', raising the question of roles in speaking:

The deluge of available information on American artists from the 1960s on
is both a blessing and a curse to art historians. Since the 1960s, most artists
have been audiotaped or videotaped talking about their work; because of changes
in how they are trained, artists have become increasingly sophisticated in
talking about their work and cooperating with critics to shape the
interpretation of it. But where does this leave the historian?

Not only is this an issue about who is or feels entitled speak about art and artists, or who can hold the attention of listening ears, but also, what is the current-day role of an artist and a system of people that surround artists (critics, presenters, historians, scholars, managers, funders, etc)? In an environment in which people speak for themselves (reality-tv led/followed), what is the place of disciplinary expertise in a network system of art? And what of the emerging problem of 'qualification overinflation' - what results is a confusion in conferrance and entitilement.

Ongoing determinations about what makes a dance artist 'professional' (and what professionalism is) fuels a whole other set of related questions.

Rolling it all around my mind...