Both author and lecturer present the opposite viewpoints about the painting which is attributed to Rembrandt. While the passage presents a list of reasons that this painting is not Rembrndt's painting, the professor mentioned contradicting points to refutes the discussed reasons in text.
First of all, the writer assumed that this painting is not Rembrndt's work since there is any inconsistency between the lady's clothes, while she has white linen cap, she also wears a fur collar. As the professor asserts, this inconsistency occurred for the sake of the manipulation happened 100-years after the painting is drawn by Rembrandt. As she claims, this painting is not original, and after a hundred year, the fur collar is added to the painting to enhance its value.
Secondly, according to Rembrandt's mastery in the light and shadow on the painting, the mistake of the illuminated face of the lady is an indicator that this painting does not belong to Rembrandt. On the other hand, the audio part rejects this assertion, since this error occurred because of the fur collar latterly added to the painting. As she posits, the main clothing of the lady is simple and white which reflects total lights toward her face; therefore, make her face to be completely bright instead of partial shadow.
Finally, the passage claims that since the panel of the painting contains several pieces of wood glued together, the panel and painting is not Rembrndt's painting. However, the professor casts doubt on the accuracy of this claim. As she asserts, the original painting is on the one sheet of wood, and extra wood pieces are added later when the fur is drawn on the painting. As she mentioned, the reason for this addition is adding the more grands and value to the painting.
Both author and lecturer present the opposite viewpoints about the
painting
which
is attributed
to Rembrandt. While the passage presents a list of reasons that this
painting
is not
Rembrndt
's
painting
, the professor mentioned contradicting points to
refutes
the discussed reasons in text.
First of all
, the writer assumed that this
painting
is not
Rembrndt
's work since there is any inconsistency between the lady's clothes, while she has white linen cap, she
also
wears a
fur
collar. As the professor asserts, this inconsistency occurred for the sake of the manipulation happened 100-years after the
painting
is drawn
by Rembrandt. As she claims, this
painting
is not original, and after a hundred year, the
fur
collar is
added
to the
painting
to enhance its value.
Secondly
, according to Rembrandt's mastery in the light and shadow on the
painting
, the mistake of the illuminated face of the lady is an indicator that this
painting
does not belong to Rembrandt.
On the other hand
, the audio part rejects this assertion, since this error occurred
because
of the
fur
collar
latterly
added
to the
painting
. As she posits, the main clothing of the lady is simple and white which reflects total lights toward her face;
therefore
,
make
her face to be completely bright
instead
of partial shadow.
Finally
, the passage claims that since the panel of the
painting
contains several pieces of wood glued together, the panel and
painting
is not
Rembrndt
's
painting
.
However
, the professor casts doubt on the accuracy of this claim. As she asserts, the original
painting
is on the one sheet of wood, and extra wood pieces are
added
later when the
fur
is drawn
on the
painting
. As she mentioned, the reason for this addition is adding the more grands and value to the
painting
.