Rembrandt is the most famous of the seventeenth-century Dutch painters. However, there are doubts whether some paintings attributed to Rembrandt were actually painted by him. One such painting is known as attributed to Rembrandt because of its style, and indeed the representation of the woman’s face is very much like that of portraits known to be by Rembrandt. But there are problems with the painting that suggest it could not be a work by Rembrandt.
First, there is something inconsistent about the way the woman in the portrait is dressed. She is wearing a white linen cap of a kind that only servants would wear-yet the coat she is wearing has a luxurious fur collar that no servant could afford. Rembrandt, who was known for his attention to the details of his subjects’ clothing, would not have been guilty of such an inconsistency.
Second, Rembrandt was a master of painting light and shadow, but in this painting these elements do not fit together. The face appears to be illuminated by light reflected onto it from below. But below the face is the dark fur collar, which would absorb light rather than reflect it. So the face should appear partially in shadow-which is not how it appears. Rembrandt would never have made such an error.
Finally, examination of the back of the painting reveals that it was painted on a panel made of several pieces of wood glued together. Although Rembrandt often painted on wood panels, no painting known to be by Rembrandt uses a panel glued together in this way from several pieces of wood.
The listening material:
Everything you just read about “Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet” is true, and yet after a thorough re-examination of the painting, a panel of experts has recently concluded that it’s indeed a work by Rembrandt. Here is why.
First, the fur collar. X-rays and analysis of the pigments in the paint have shown that the fur collar wasn’t part of the original painting. The fur collar was painted over the top of the original painting about a hundred years after the painting was made. Why? Someone probably wanted to increase the value of the painting by making it look like a formal portrait of an aristocratic lady.
Second, the supposed error with light and shadow. Once the paint of the added fur color was removed, the original painting could be seen. In the original painting, the woman is wearing a simple collar of light-colored cloth. The light-colored cloth of this collar reflects light that illuminated part of the woman’s face. That’s why the face is not in partial shadow. So in the original painting, light and shadow are very realistic and just what we could expect from Rembrandt.
Finally, the wood panel. It turns out that when the fur collar was added, the wood panel was also enlarged with extra wood pieces glued to the sides and the top to make the painting more grand and more valuable. So the original painting is actually painted on a single piece of wood, as would be expected from a Rembrandt painting. And in fact, researchers have found that the piece of wood in the original form of “Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet” is from the very same tree as the wood panel used for another painting by Rembrandt, his “Self-portrait with a Hat”.
The article states that the painting known as Potrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet might not have been work of the artist Rembrandt. The article explains this by providing three reasons, however the lecture from the professor explains with the help of a study that the work was indeed by Rembrandt and refutes the reading.
First, the article claims there is an inconsistency in the way the woman in the picture is dressed, according to the article the woman should have dressed in modest clothes. However, the lecture refutes the article saying that the painting was painted over on. The X-ray analysis of pigments in paint reveals this fact. The fur collar is not the part of the original painting. The lecture claims that this was probably done to increase the value of the potrait.
Second, the article posits that the light and shadow elements of the painting don't fit together in the painting and it couldn't have been Rembrandt who painted this painting becuase he was a master of these element. The lecture refutes this fact again bringing up the X-ray analysis. The professor explains that once the added paint was removed, reveals that in the original painting the woman was wearing a light coloured collar which illuminates the part of the face explaining the inconsistency.
Finally, the article states that the painting was pianted on a panel made of several pieces of wood glued together. The lecture on the other hand explains that this was done to enlarge the piece and make it appear grander. In fact, the lecture states that the original painting was on a single piece of wood panel, which was obtained from the same tree as another painting of Rembrandt.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 378, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... not the part of the original painting. The lecture claims that this was probably d...
^^^
Line 5, column 79, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ght and shadow elements of the painting dont fit together in the painting and it cou...
^^^^
Line 5, column 120, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ont fit together in the painting and it couldnt have been Rembrandt who painted this pa...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 201, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this element' or 'these elements'?
Suggestion: this element; these elements
...his painting becuase he was a master of these element. The lecture refutes this fact again br...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'however', 'second', 'so', 'in fact', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.263665594855 0.261695866417 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.183279742765 0.158904122519 115% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0514469453376 0.0723426182421 71% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0353697749196 0.0435111971325 81% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0096463022508 0.0277247811725 35% => OK
Prepositions: 0.135048231511 0.128828473217 105% => OK
Participles: 0.0675241157556 0.0370669169778 182% => Less participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.37091143029 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0096463022508 0.0208969081088 46% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0032154340836 0.00154638098197 208% => OK
Determiners: 0.202572347267 0.128158765124 158% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0064308681672 0.0158828679856 40% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0096463022508 0.0114777025283 84% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1687.0 1645.83664459 103% => OK
No of words: 289.0 271.125827815 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83737024221 6.08160592843 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04852973271 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.359861591696 0.374372842146 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.287197231834 0.287516216867 100% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.173010380623 0.187439937562 92% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0519031141869 0.113142543107 46% => More words length more than 8 chars wanted.
Word Length SD: 2.37091143029 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.456747404844 0.539623497131 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 43.7462581301 53.8517498576 81% => OK
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0529801325 100% => OK
Sentence length: 22.2307692308 21.7502111507 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.5321752249 49.3711431718 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.769230769 132.220823453 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2307692308 21.7502111507 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.538461538462 0.878197800319 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.39072847682 118% => OK
Readability: 50.9504924142 50.5018328374 101% => OK
Elegance: 2.04225352113 1.90840788429 107% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.307270105683 0.549887131256 56% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.154560970073 0.142949733639 108% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0508335618504 0.0787303798458 65% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.722954634554 0.631733273073 114% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.117824776988 0.139662658121 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.179909318567 0.266732575781 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0525059532013 0.103435571967 51% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.681951823219 0.414875509568 164% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0509167310553 0.0530846634433 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.253487941302 0.40443939384 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.023248526735 0.0528353158467 44% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.26048565121 141% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 3.49668874172 172% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 3.62251655629 28% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 6.0 3.1766004415 189% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 10.2958057395 126% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.