The passage discusses the most famous painter of the seventeenth-century, Rembrandt. It states that there are some clues which might suggest that the painting Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet might not be a work done by Rembrandt and provides three reasons to support. However, the professor refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that there are inconsistencies in the dress in the portrait. The woman is wearing a linen cap, which was a servant's apparel back in the past. Although, the coat she has on her body is an expensive fur collar which, by all means, could not be affordable by any servants. The professor refutes this point by providing a result of the x-ray test of the painting's pigment. It indicates that the painting was repainted on top of the original one.
Second, the article claims that Rembrandt was a light and shadow expert. However, in the painting, the face appears to be overexposed by light reflected from the dark fur collar below, which does not make any sense. The professor contends this point by mentioning that if the shade is removed, the real painting will appear and we will see the light color cloth, which reflects light.
Third, the reading avers that the panel used by this painting is assembled by small pieces of woods The reading continues that none of Rembrandt's work uses this kind of panel. The lecture opposes this point by mentioning that the panel was made that way on purpose, to make it grander. Also, he mentioned that all the pieces of wood the article mentioned were actually made from the same tree according to the research.
To conclude, although the reading and the lecture are both about Rembrandt's painting, three main points in the reading are effectively challenged by the lecturer.
The passage discusses the most
famous
painter of the seventeenth-century, Rembrandt. It states that there are
some
clues which might suggest that the
painting
Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet might not be a work done by Rembrandt and provides three reasons to support.
However
, the professor refutes each of the author's reasons.
First
, the
reading
states that there are inconsistencies in the dress in the portrait. The woman is wearing a linen cap, which was a servant's apparel back in the past. Although, the coat she has on her body is an expensive fur collar which, by all means, could not be affordable by any servants. The professor refutes this
point
by providing a result of the x-ray
test
of the painting's pigment. It indicates that the
painting
was repainted
on top of the original one.
Second, the article claims that Rembrandt was a light and shadow expert.
However
, in the
painting
, the face appears to
be overexposed
by light reflected from the dark fur collar below, which does not
make
any sense. The professor contends this
point
by mentioning that if the shade
is removed
, the real
painting
will
appear and
we will
see
the light color cloth, which reflects light.
Third, the
reading
avers that the panel
used
by this
painting
is assembled
by
small
pieces of woods The
reading
continues that none of Rembrandt's work
uses
this kind of panel. The lecture opposes this
point
by mentioning that the panel
was made
that way on purpose, to
make
it grander.
Also
, he mentioned that all the pieces of wood the article mentioned were actually made from the same tree according to the research.
To conclude
, although the
reading
and the lecture are both about Rembrandt's
painting
, three main
points
in the
reading
are
effectively
challenged by the lecturer.