Speaking

1. I am sorry for the long context, but I think it is necessary. I want to know if the highlighted "speaking" mean "Louise Bourgeois, apart from her artworks, speaks about her life" or "her artworks speak about her life"? At first glance it seems that these are her artworks that speak about her life but the rest of the paragraph compares her artworks and her statements which makes me assume "speaking" refers to "Louise Bourgeois herself talking about her life regardless of her artworks". What is your idea?

2. Does "one has to be careful not to take her explications of her work for granted"mean "we should not think her speeches and her explanations about her artworks are legitimate and true because she might be wrong about her own artworks" ?

Context:

While the uncanny itself is no more a property of space than it is a property of objects, the expansion of urban space created external phantasmagoria such as buildings that pressed down on the subject and vast derelict areas that frightened him/her. Like the folds of a Moebius strip, fear of the outside engendered retreat into the home, but home had become an equally disturbed space that generated nostalgia for a sense of belonging. ‘The uncanny is not a property of space but an aesthetic dimension, a representation of a mental state of projection that precisely elides the boundaries of the real and the unreal in order to provoke a disturbing ambiguity, a slippage between waking and dreaming.’
On a more private scale, the French artist Louise Bourgeois used the motif of the house continually in her work, speaking passionately about the disturbing familial relationships that structured her own personal psychic life, such as her father’s affair with her English tutor and the death of her mother in 1932 when Bourgeois was 20. However, while Bourgeois’s statements show a keen awareness of Freud’s ideas, as well as the ideas of his follower Melanie Klein (see Chapter 9), the narration of her personal life reading almost like a case history, one has to be careful not to take her explications of her work for granted. Bourgeois herself was ambivalent about psychoanalysis, saying that for the artist there is no cure. While artists like Bourgeois and, as we saw in the previous chapter, Max Ernst make statements that impose a psychic narrative on their work, these case histories have to be taken as semifictional in the sense that all case histories are a construction after the fact and are themselves a working through of fantasies and desires in a literary rather than a visual medium. It is crucial to resist as much as possible the tendency in our culture to latch onto words as having the power to explain art. I see Bourgeois’s statements and her work as different instances of working through childhood trauma, the artwork being fantastical elaborations of psychic processes that result in objects and scenarios that are wonderfully in excess of her autobiography, although they could be said to mine it for inspiration (https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=p5sMKTqE44MC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq="continually+in+her+work,+speaking+passionately+about"&source=bl&ots=wYz9Yksl4o&sig=ACfU3U01F_Y1a6FjI9U9IoWn82ZkB_76Tg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnteybzeblAhUI2qQKHaKVDRUQ6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q="continually%20in%20her%20work%2C%20speaking%20passionately%20about"&f=false).