▶ Your Answer :
Both the reading and the listening discuss
whether the painting of Rembrandt was actually painted by him. While the
passage says that there are some problems explaining why this painting could
not be a work by Rembrandt, the lecturer argues that the theory stated in the
passage is different and inaccurate as compared to what happens in reality.
First,
the lecturer asserts that the pigments that were used in the painting were not
part of the original paining. In other words, Rembrandt painted over the top of
the work after 100 years since it helped him increase the value and emphasize
the formal clothing that the woman in the portrait wears. This contradicts the
writer’s idea that there was an inconsistency in the way the woman is dressed.
Second,
the lecturer contends that Rembrandt used light and shadow in the painting just
like his other works. Before he added the pigments on the original painting, it
did reflect the light that illuminating the woman’s face. Also, the clothes she
wears were light-colored and simple, which shows the realistic feature that
could be also found in his other paintings. This directly rebuts what the
passages explain about an error in which light and shadow do not fit together
in the portrait.
Third,
the lecturer points out that it is not true that he had never used a panel made
of wood glued together. Rembrandt used this kind of panel in order for the
painting to be more grand and more valuable. Though he had used a single piece
of wood, he might want to enlarge the panel with glue for this portrait. Not
only this, a panel made of wood glued could be also found in his self-portrait.
This refutes the writer’s assertion that he only painted on a single piece of wood
panel.
In
summary, the passage claims that the painting has some problems proving that
the work was actually painted by Rembrandt. However, the lecturer comes up with
strong evidence in support of his view that the painting was actually painted
by Rembrandt.
|