The lecture refutes the reading that claims the painting, Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet, is not drawn by Rembrandt, a famous Dutch painter, by clarifying the three arguments the reading presents.
First, the lecture elucidates the inconsistency about the way the woman in the portrait is dressed. By assuming that she is a servant from her linen cap in the portrait, the reading questions why the woman is also wearing a luxurious fur collar that a servant cannot afford. On the other hand, the lecture clarifies that the fur collar is not part of Rembrandt’s original painting. The recent research using x-rays reveals that someone added the fur collar about 100 years later to increase the value of the painting.
Second, the lecture maintains that the portrait illustrates the realistic color of the light reflection under the additional fur collar painting. The reading suspects the incoherent description of the light and shadow. The reading identifies that the below the face should not be illuminated as much as other parts of the face because the fur collar would have absorbed the light. However, the lecture indicates that light and shadow are realistic and coherent in the original painting without the additional fur collar.
Third, the lecture specifies the reason why the portrait was painted on several wooden panels. Considering this use of panels as an exception for Rembrandt’s works, the reading doubts that the origin of painting is Rembrandt. In contrast, the lecture explains the panels were glued together with the original paintings when the fur collar was added. With the aid of additional panels, the portrait raises its value. Moreover, the lecture adds her credibility by stating that the wooden panels of the portrait are from the same tree as the wooden panels of another Rembrandt’s work, Self-Portrait with a Hat.
In conclusion, the lecture refutes the reading’s argument that Rembrandt did not paint Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet by expounding on three counter-arguments.
The
lecture
refutes the
reading
that claims the
painting
,
Portrait
of an Elderly
Woman
in a White Bonnet, is not drawn by Rembrandt, a
famous
Dutch painter, by clarifying the three arguments the
reading
presents.
First
, the
lecture
elucidates the inconsistency about the way the
woman
in the
portrait
is dressed
. By assuming that she is a servant from her linen cap in the
portrait
, the
reading
questions why the
woman
is
also
wearing a luxurious
fur
collar
that a servant cannot afford.
On the other hand
, the
lecture
clarifies that the
fur
collar
is not part of Rembrandt’s original
painting
. The recent research using x-rays reveals that someone
added
the
fur
collar
about 100 years later to increase the value of the painting.
Second, the
lecture
maintains that the
portrait
illustrates the realistic color of the
light
reflection under the additional
fur
collar
painting
. The
reading
suspects the incoherent description of the
light
and shadow. The
reading
identifies that the below the face should not
be illuminated
as much as other parts of the face
because
the
fur
collar
would have absorbed the
light
.
However
, the
lecture
indicates that
light
and shadow are realistic and coherent in the original
painting
without the additional
fur
collar.
Third, the
lecture
specifies the reason why the
portrait
was painted
on several wooden
panels
. Considering this
use
of
panels
as an exception for Rembrandt’s works, the
reading
doubts that the origin of
painting
is Rembrandt.
In contrast
, the
lecture
explains
the
panels
were glued
together with the original
paintings
when the
fur
collar
was
added
. With the aid of additional
panels
, the
portrait
raises its value.
Moreover
, the
lecture
adds
her credibility by stating that the wooden
panels
of the
portrait
are from the same tree as the wooden
panels
of another Rembrandt’s work, Self-Portrait with a Hat.
In conclusion
, the
lecture
refutes the
reading’s
argument that Rembrandt did not paint
Portrait
of an Elderly
Woman
in a White Bonnet by expounding on three counter-arguments.