The reading and the lecture talked about James Austen. The reading believed that James Austen is the person in professional painting. However, the lecturer holds that the three evidence presented in the reading are doubtful.
First of all, the reading stated that the Austen family confirmed that the girl in the painting is James Austen. Meanwhile, the portrait was published 72 years after Austen's death, according to the lecture her relative never saw her in person. Therefore, the family members could be wrong.
Secondly, although the reading firmly believed that Austen's full-length portrait was of her. Comparatively, the characteristics of the portrait are so similar to those of the portrait that Cassandra sketched when Austen was an adult. The lecturer argues that whoever is in the portrait is not Austen. Furthermore, the Austen family was big and Austen had relatives the same age as her, so the subject might be one of them.
Thirdly, the reading claimed that Austen's family must have hired Ozias Humphrey since he was a professional painter when Austen was a teenager. There was also evidence that proved Ozias’s work style and links. The lecturer contradicted this point by providing another piece of evidence. A stamp on the back of the portrait was a piece of canvas that began to sell in London when Austen was 26 years old. Consequently, the girl in the portrait is not assertive, that could be James Austen.
Overall, the speaker provided three pieces of evidence contradicting the writer's theories, implying that the teenager in the portrait is not James Austen.
The
reading
and the lecture talked about James Austen. The
reading
believed that James Austen is the person in professional painting.
However
, the lecturer holds that the three
evidence
presented in the
reading
are doubtful.
First of all
, the
reading
stated that the Austen
family
confirmed that the girl in the painting is James Austen. Meanwhile, the
portrait
was published
72 years after Austen's death, according to the lecture her relative never
saw
her in person.
Therefore
, the
family
members could be
wrong
.
Secondly
, although the
reading
firmly
believed that Austen's full-length
portrait
was of her.
Comparatively
, the characteristics of the
portrait
are
so
similar to those of the
portrait
that Cassandra sketched when Austen was an adult. The lecturer argues that whoever is in the
portrait
is not Austen.
Furthermore
, the Austen
family
was
big
and Austen had relatives the same age as her,
so
the subject might be one of them.
Thirdly
, the
reading
claimed that Austen's
family
must
have hired
Ozias
Humphrey since he was a professional painter when Austen was a
teenager
. There was
also
evidence
that proved
Ozias
’s work style and links. The lecturer contradicted this point by providing another piece of
evidence
. A stamp on the back of the
portrait
was a piece of canvas that began to sell in London when Austen was 26 years
old
.
Consequently
, the girl in the
portrait
is not assertive, that could be James Austen.
Overall
, the speaker provided three pieces of
evidence
contradicting the writer's theories, implying that the
teenager
in the
portrait
is not James Austen.