The reading and the lecture are about “Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet, ” a painting which may or may not be a work by Rembrandt. The author of the reading believes that the painting was not done by the Dutch master. The lecturer casts doubts on the claims made in the article. She thinks that it was, in fact, painted by Rembrandt.
First of all, the author claims that the woman’s outfit is inconsistent, as it pairs a servant’s cap with a luxurious coat and fur collar. It is pointed out that Rembrandt would not have made such a mistake, as he paid very careful attention to detail. This argument is challenged by the lecturer. She says that the woman’s fur collar was added to the painting by another artist at a later date. She asserts that this was likely done to increase the value of the painting.
Secondly, the author states that the depiction of light and shadow in the portrait is poorly done. He argues that Rembrandt would not have made the mistakes which are seen in this particular painting. This argument is rebutted in the lecture. The lecturer observes that when the aforementioned fur collar is removed, no mistakes with light and shadow remain. She notes that the original version of the painting is up to Rembrandt’s usual standards.
Finally, the author mentions that the portrait was painted on a series of panels which were glued together. It is noted that while Rembrandt often painted on wood panels, there is no evidence that he ever used panels that were glued together in such a fashion. The lecturer casts doubt on this by arguing that the wood panel was expanded many years after the painting was originally done. She puts forth the idea that this is evidence that the painting was originally completed on just a single panel like other works by Rembrandt.
The reading and the lecture are about “Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet,
”
a
painting
which may or may not be a work by Rembrandt. The
author
of the reading believes that the
painting
was not done by the Dutch master.
The
lecturer
casts doubts on the claims made in the article. She
thinks
that it was, in fact, painted by Rembrandt.
First of all
, the
author
claims that the woman’s outfit is inconsistent, as it pairs a servant’s cap with a luxurious coat and fur collar. It
is pointed
out that Rembrandt would not have made such a mistake, as he paid
very
careful attention to detail. This argument
is challenged
by the
lecturer
. She says that the woman’s fur collar was
added
to the
painting
by another artist at a later date. She asserts that this was likely done to increase the value of the painting.
Secondly
, the
author
states that the depiction of light and shadow in the portrait is
poorly
done. He argues that Rembrandt would not have made the mistakes which are
seen
in this particular
painting
. This argument
is rebutted
in the lecture. The
lecturer
observes that when the aforementioned fur collar
is removed
, no mistakes with light and shadow remain. She notes that the original version of the
painting
is up to Rembrandt’s usual standards.
Finally
, the
author
mentions that the portrait
was painted
on a series of
panels
which
were glued
together. It
is noted
that while Rembrandt
often
painted on wood
panels
, there is no evidence that he ever
used
panels
that
were glued
together in such a fashion. The
lecturer
casts doubt on this by arguing that the wood
panel
was expanded
many
years after the
painting
was
originally
done. She puts forth the
idea
that this is evidence that the
painting
was
originally
completed on
just
a single
panel
like other works by Rembrandt.