The reading describes doubts about “Portrait of an elderly woman in a white bonnet” a portrait, which was considered to be one of Rembrandt's paintings and gives three reasons to endorse its idea. On the other hand, the lecture provides counter-arguments by stating that careful re-examination has proved the portrait to be indeed Rembrandt’s piece of art.
To begin with, the author states that Rembrandt was known for paying closer attention to the details of his paintings, whereas the details of the woman’s luxury fur collar were not matching with the description of her dress. However, the Lecture refutes this claim by indicating that x-ray analysis has shown that the pigment of the fur is not matching with the original painting. As it was added over the top of the fur collar hundred years later to increase the value of the painting, and to make the portrait more valuable. Therefore, the details seemed different from the original.
Secondly, the writer describes that there is a shadow on the woman’s face from her black collar. It was impossible for Rembrandt to do such a blunder, as he was known to paint lights and shadows. The lecture opposes this argument by insisting that the painter was master to know the effect of shadowing and lighting. During the analysis, when fabricated pigment from the fur was removed, a light-colored collar was discovered under the black fur that clearly suggests this light color illuminated the woman’s face. Therefore, this is not an error made by the painter but by the fabricator.
Lastly, the writer points that if it was the painter’s original work it was not glued on several pieces of wooden panels because Rembrandt had not used several pieces of wood for any of his creations. The lecture clarifies this and explains that the original painting was on a single panel, but when the fur collar was added then the wooden frame was enlarged too with multiple panels. Another evidence is the source of the woody panel. Rembrandt had used the same wood source for creating another portrait, and this could not be a coincidence. So, extra panels were used later for enlargement purposes only.
The reading
describes
doubts about
“Portrait
of an elderly
woman
in a white bonnet” a
portrait
, which
was considered
to be one of Rembrandt's
paintings
and gives three reasons to endorse its
idea
.
On the other hand
, the
lecture
provides counter-arguments by stating that careful re-examination has proved the
portrait
to be
indeed
Rembrandt’s piece of art.
To
begin
with, the author states that Rembrandt
was known
for paying closer attention to the
details
of his
paintings
, whereas the
details
of the
woman’s
luxury
fur
collar
were not matching with the description of her dress.
However
, the
Lecture
refutes this claim by indicating that x-ray analysis has shown that the pigment of the
fur
is not matching with the original
painting
. As it was
added
over the top of the
fur
collar
hundred
years later to increase the value of the
painting
, and to
make
the
portrait
more valuable.
Therefore
, the
details
seemed
different
from the original.
Secondly
, the writer
describes
that there is a shadow on the
woman’s
face from her black
collar
. It was impossible for Rembrandt to do such a blunder, as he
was known
to paint lights and shadows. The
lecture
opposes this argument by insisting that the painter was master to know the effect of shadowing and lighting. During the analysis, when fabricated pigment from the
fur
was removed
, a light-colored
collar
was discovered
under the black
fur
that
clearly
suggests this light color illuminated the
woman’s
face.
Therefore
, this is not an error made by the painter
but
by the fabricator.
Lastly
, the writer points that if it was the painter’s original work it was not glued on several pieces of wooden
panels
because
Rembrandt had not
used
several pieces of wood for any of his creations. The
lecture
clarifies this and
explains
that the original
painting
was on a single
panel
,
but
when the
fur
collar
was
added
then the wooden frame
was enlarged
too with multiple
panels
. Another evidence is the source of the woody
panel
. Rembrandt had
used
the same wood source for creating another
portrait
, and this could not be a coincidence.
So
, extra
panels
were
used
later for enlargement purposes
only
.