The reading and the lecture are both about a painting for rembrandt. The author of the article believes that this painting is not original and it doesn't reflect rembrandt style. However, the lecturer refutes the claims mentioned in the article.
First of all, the article states that how the woman is dressed in the painting casts doubt that the painting is not a genuine work of rembrandt. Although the woman in the painting appear wearing a luxurious fur collar that's only for aristocrats, she appears also wearing white linen cap which is only for servants. this point is challenged by the lecturer. According to the lecture, the speaker says that the luxurious fur collar was added about a hundred years later to the original painting to increase the value of it. Thus, the lecture refutes all the arguments mentioned in the article
The reading and the lecture are both about a
painting
for
rembrandt
. The author of the article believes that this
painting
is not original and it doesn't reflect
rembrandt
style.
However
, the lecturer refutes the claims mentioned in the article.
First of all
, the article states that how the woman
is dressed
in the
painting
casts doubt that the
painting
is not a genuine work of
rembrandt
. Although the woman in the
painting
appear wearing a luxurious fur collar that's
only
for aristocrats, she appears
also
wearing white linen cap which is
only
for servants.
this
point
is challenged
by the lecturer. According to the lecture, the speaker says that the luxurious fur collar was
added
about a hundred years later to the original
painting
to increase the value of it.
Thus
, the lecture refutes all the arguments mentioned in the article