Although Johannes Vermeer is famous for his masterpiece “Girl with a Pearl Earring,” not much is known about who modeled for the painting. The curiosity aroused by the mystery brought about several theories about the true identity of the model.
The first candidate is Maria Vermeer, who was the eldest daughter of Johannes Vermeer. Johannes Vermeer found the source of inspiration from daily life. His artworks focused on everyday life scenes from neighborhoods in Delft as a result. This artistic style of Vermeer drove critics to formulate a theory that Vermeer's daughter may have posed for the portrait. To support the idea, one critic even commented that only a father could sketch such portraits.
Magdalena Van Ruijven, who was the only daughter of Vermeer's patron, Pieter Van Ruijven, was also proposed as a candidate. The Vermeer and Van Ruijven families were close neighbors, making it possible that the painting was a request for his daughter from Van Ruijven. This can be further speculated considering the fact that the painting was given to Magdalena Van Ruijven as a wedding gift.
The last theory is the tronie theory. Tronie refers to a popular genre of 17th-century Dutch paintings that portrays exaggerated facial expressions of fictional characters. This genre may have influenced the painting of Vermeer profoundly, making him focus on the representation of an imaginary figure: in this case, an anonymous girl in exotic clothing and a huge pearl in her ear. With the balanced use of light and darkness, the painter focuses on the facial expressions and effectively depicts the delicate emotion of the girl in the painting. Such characteristic is similar to what the tronie genre keyed on.
Recently, there has been a ton of debate as to the identity of the model of the Johannes Vermeer's masterpice. More specifically, in regards to the passages, the writer put forth the idea that there are three way we can elaborate this model's identity. However the lecturer is quick to poin out that there are some serious flaws in the write's claims. In facts, the professor believes the three posibility of the explanation of model are inaccurate, and addresses, in detail, the trouble with each point made in the reading rtext.
To begin with, the author states that the model may be the painter's elder daughter. Some professors in the same field, however, stands in firm opposition to this claim. In the listening, for example, the professor claims that it never be the painter's daughter. He goes on to say that different unknown model were found at that time for painting. The model should be from these girls.
Secondly, one group of scholar represented by the writer thinks that the model may be the Vermeer's patron name Pieter Van. Of course, though, not all experts, in the same field believe this is accurate. Again the professor specifically addresses this point when he claims that the 17th century the potrit was the symbol of dignity so, the picture is not only for the purpose. Additionally he notes that the light balance indicate it is not the picture of the Pieter Van's daughter .
Finally, the author wraps his argument by positing that it may be the portrait of a immaginary figure. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue on this matter by contending that as the facial expression is said that it is not an immeginary figure.It must be a potrait of any unanyomous girl.
To sum up, both the writer and professor hold conflicting view about the identity of the model of the Johannes Vermeer's masterpice. It is clear that they will have trouble in finding common grouds on this issue.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 130, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
...Vermeers masterpice. More specifically, in regards to the passages, the writer put forth the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 252, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... we can elaborate this models identity. However the lecturer is quick to poin out that ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 230, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[5]
Message: The adverb 'never' is usually put after the verb 'be'.
Suggestion: be never
...r example, the professor claims that it never be the painters daughter. He goes on to sa...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 243, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'painters'' or 'painter's'?
Suggestion: painters'; painter's
...e professor claims that it never be the painters daughter. He goes on to say that differ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 377, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Additionally,
...he picture is not only for the purpose. Additionally he notes that the light balance indicat...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 480, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... the picture of the Pieter Vans daughter . Finally, the author wraps his argume...
^^
Line 7, column 83, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...positing that it may be the portrait of a immaginary figure. Not surprisingly, th...
^
Line 7, column 250, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: It
...aid that it is not an immeginary figure.It must be a potrait of any unanyomous gir...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, as to, for example, in fact, of course, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1590.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 329.0 270.72406181 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83282674772 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58351772203 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 145.348785872 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547112462006 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 488.7 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.3289736211 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.5294117647 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3529411765 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.64705882353 7.06452816374 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.27373068433 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173061182408 0.272083759551 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0539094781387 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0565627242571 0.0662205650399 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0925216397472 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0454812032069 0.0443174109184 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.