The article states that a dutch painting which once attributed to Rembrandt isn't actually painted by him, and provides three reasons for support. However, the professor acknowledge the validity of the statements given in the reading but reasons that these facts can be justified in other ways rather than the assumption Rembrandt haven't painted the art.
First, the reading claims that there is a contradict between the cheap dress of the lady in the painting which was exclusive to servants and her luxurious fur coat, and such a mistake couldn't be made by Rembrandt. The professor refutes the conclusion by mentioning that the fur coat was not originally part of the painting. X-ray experiments have indicated that it was added years later because they thought a fancy dressed lady in the painting would make it more valuable than a servant.
Second, the reading posits that the face portrayed in the painting must be in shadow because the dark fur below the face cannot reflect the light but the face is surprisingly illuminated. The professor explains that in the original painting, the area of the added fur had white color so the lightness of the face were completely in harmony in the original painting.
Third, the article claims that the painting's panel consists of several wood pieces glued together while none of Rembrandt’s works were in such a condition. The professor justified this contradict by explaining that they have enlarged the original painting by gluing other pieces to paint the fur coat and enrich the value of the painting for better sell. She also mentions that the original single wood piece of the painting is from the same tree which Rembrandt utilized for his other paintings.
The article states that a dutch
painting
which once attributed to Rembrandt isn't actually painted by him, and provides three reasons for support.
However
, the
professor
acknowledge the validity of the statements
given
in the reading
but
reasons that these facts can
be justified
in other ways
rather
than the assumption Rembrandt haven't painted the art.
First
, the reading claims that there is
a contradict
between the
cheap
dress of the lady in the
painting
which was exclusive to servants and her luxurious
fur
coat, and such a mistake couldn't
be made
by Rembrandt. The
professor
refutes the conclusion by mentioning that the
fur
coat was not
originally
part of the
painting
. X-ray experiments have indicated that it was
added
years later
because
they
thought
a fancy dressed lady in the
painting
would
make
it more valuable than a servant.
Second, the reading posits that the
face
portrayed in the
painting
must
be in shadow
because
the dark
fur
below the
face
cannot reflect the light
but
the
face
is
surprisingly
illuminated. The
professor
explains
that in the
original
painting
, the area of the
added
fur
had white color
so
the lightness of the
face
were completely in harmony in the
original
painting.
Third, the article claims that the painting's panel consists of several wood pieces glued together while none of Rembrandt’s works were in such a condition. The
professor
justified
this contradict
by explaining that they have enlarged the
original
painting
by gluing other pieces to paint the
fur
coat and enrich the value of the
painting
for better sell. She
also
mentions that the
original
single wood piece of the
painting
is from the same tree which Rembrandt utilized for his other
paintings
.