Both the lecturer and the writer discuss
whether the portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet is painted by
Rembrandt or not. The writer claims that the portrait is not a work by
Rembrandt by suggesting three reasons: dress inconsistency, lightning and
shadowing error, and glued panels. However, the lecturer contradicts the
writer's claim by giving three opposite reasons.
First of all, the lecturer argues that the
reason why the woman in the portrait wears dress inconsistently is because the
painting is not original. According to the lecturer, the fur collar in the
portrait is inserted one hundred year after, citing the result of the pigment
analyzing test. The lecturer explains that the portrait may be retouched by
someone who wanted to increase value of the piece. This goes against the
reading passage's argument that the woman's dress in the portrait is strange and
Rembrandts would not have painted like that.
In second, the lecturer explains in line of
first reason. The error of lightning and shadowing on face of the woman in the
portrait happened due to someone's painting insertion. The original painting
might contain simple color and light. However, the realistic depiction has been
cracked by adjustment. This rebuffs the reading passage's claim that Rembrandt
had never made errors like the portrait: the error of light and shadow on the
woman's face, thus the portrait is not from Rembrandt.
Last, the lecturer insists that the panel
glued together also happened by insertion. She explains that the one who
retouched the portrait might want to make the painting be grand and valuable.
Moreover, the lecturer added the fact that the panel is made from very same
tree as another piece painted by Rembrandt. This contradicts the reading
passage's assertion that the portrait is not made by Rembrandt because they
have never used panel glued together.