▶ Your Answer :
In
this given set of materials, there is some discrepancy between the view of the
lecturer and the author, over the issue of the authenticity of one of Rembrandt’s
paintings. The lecturer affirms that indeed, the painting is made by Rembrandt,
whereas the author in the passage suggests otherwise.
To
start with, the lecturer debunks the author’s first conjecture since the woman’s
dress is not original version of his painting. To elaborate in detail, the
painting was colored again after the painting had made by Rembrandt to make the
painting more expensive. This view is in direct opposition to the author’s claim
that the dress the woman wear in the painting is inconsistent her identity as a
servant.
In
addition, the lecturer also indicates dissent over the author’s idea on the
light in the painting. The lecturer sounds convinced that the author is making
a manifest error about the reflection of the painting since it was re-painted
after had made. The lecturer adds that the original version of Rembrandt’s
painting reflected well environmental light. However, the author clarifies that
the painting is not match the color with environment light.
Thirdly,
the lecturer goes on to expound that the author’s final point on the painting
material is flawed. The lecturer mentions adds of panels to corroborate this
opinion. Several pieces of wood panels were added to make the painting more
grand and valuable, the actual painting was painted on single wood panel. Also,
the wood panel is the same piece of his other painting. However, this counters
the author’s theory that Rembrandt did not paint the wood panel which make with
several pieces together. Therefore, with these three convincing explanations
the lecturer posits, the author’s assumptions are all rendered groundless.
|