The article states that one specific painting (an elderly woman in a dress) is not actually the work of Rembrandt; however the professor refutes with this claim. For her disagreement, she upholds three major reasons which are completely against all claims in the reading. In the following, these solid proofs will be discussed thoroughly.
First, the reading says that this painting is not an original work as the way the woman is dressed is not like Rembrandt's other paintings. On the other hand, the lecturer rejects this idea insomuch as she concedes that a fore-color had been added to the painting about one hundred years after the painter had finished his job. Probably, this action had been done in order to increase the value of the painting.
Second, the passage posits that this painting does not follow the other works of the painter from light and shadow perspectives, but the lecturer opposes this idea. She claims that the original painting, before the added color, had simple light-color cloth exactly like other paintings of the artist. This color was so realistic which resembled the expected job of the painter and illuminated the face of the elderly woman.
Third, by diverse analyses, the author accepts that the painting was painted on several pieces of wood which is against the original work of the artist. However, the lecturer does not agree with this idea owing to the fact that he claims these additional peices, as well as the extra paint, had been added to that masterpiece afterwards. Therefore, the scholars have found that the original painting was painted on a single piece of wood. Moreover, the professor claims that this piece of wood is from the same tree which another painting of the artist was painted on it. That painting is a self-portrait of the Rembrandt with a hat.
The article states that one specific
painting
(an elderly woman in a dress) is not actually the
work
of Rembrandt;
however
the professor refutes with this
claim
. For her disagreement, she upholds three major reasons which are completely against all
claims
in the reading. In the following, these solid proofs will
be discussed
thoroughly
.
First
, the reading says that this
painting
is not an
original
work
as the way the woman
is dressed
is not like Rembrandt's
other
paintings
. On the
other
hand, the lecturer rejects this
idea
insomuch as she concedes that a fore-color had been
added
to the
painting
about one hundred years after the painter had finished his job.
Probably
, this action had
been done
in order to increase the value of the painting.
Second, the passage posits that this
painting
does not follow the
other
works of the painter from light and shadow perspectives,
but
the lecturer opposes this
idea
. She
claims
that the
original
painting
,
before
the
added
color, had simple light-color cloth exactly like
other
paintings
of the artist. This color was
so
realistic which resembled the
expected
job of the painter and illuminated the face of the elderly woman.
Third, by diverse analyses, the author accepts that the
painting
was painted
on several pieces of wood which is against the
original
work
of the artist.
However
, the lecturer does not
agree
with this
idea
owing to the fact that he
claims
these additional
peices
,
as well
as the extra paint, had been
added
to that masterpiece afterwards.
Therefore
, the scholars have found that the
original
painting
was painted
on a single piece of wood.
Moreover
, the professor
claims
that this piece of wood is from the same tree which another
painting
of the artist
was painted
on it. That
painting
is a self-portrait of the Rembrandt with a hat.