▶ Your Answer : Both the reading passage and the listening are discussing the topic about the painting of a woman known to be drawn by Rembrandt. However, their perspectives are different. The reading argues that there are three reasons why it is not Rembrandt's painting, while the professor in the listening disagrees and says otherwise.
The first point made in the passage is that there is an inconsistency about the woman's clothes in the painting. The reading argued that Rembrandt would not make such an obvious mistake since he was known for his attention to those small details. The lecturer, however, challenges this particular viewpoint by arguing that someone put on a new pigment 100 years later, asserting that the person who drew over wanted to make this painting more valuable.
Another point the article put an emphasis on is light and shadow. Rembrandt was known as a master of light and shadow, but the reading asserted that he made a visible error, by saying that the face on the drawing was supposed to be appeared partially with shadows. In contrast, the lecturer contends that it is a realistic shadow detail since the woman in the painting was wearing a light color cloth in the original painting. So consequently, the face was not illuminated by light, but the light illuminated the face.
Finally, it is stated in the reading that the painting's panel is unusual, compared to Rembrandt's previous pictures. According to the back of the painting, it was drawn in a panel which was jointly made up by several wood pieces. The reading asserted that previous paintings of Rembrandt were not in this way. on the contrary, it is accentuated in the lecture that it was enlarged by someone with additional wood pieces, and the original painting was just a single wood piece, just as Rembrandt's old paintings.
|