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 "Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet." The painting was 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 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.
For these reasons, the painting was removed from the official catalog of Rembrandt’s paintings in the 1930s.
The reading and lecture are both about a painting of a Dutch painter-Rembrandt. The author feels that the "Portrait of an Elderly Women in a White Bonnet" was not his work and there are three reasons for the support of this claim. However, the lecturer challenges all the arguments made by the author. She is of the opinion that these explanations are faulty
First, the reading states that the elements in the women's dressing didn't fit together, especially, the fur coat was usually used by rich. In addition, the drawing had a white linen cap that servants wear. The lecturer challenges this by saying that, after x-ray examination and analysis of the pigments in the color used, the panel of experts corroborate that, this fur coat was added to the painting after 100 years, the portrait had been drawn. Moreover, she argues that this is done to increase the value of the portrait, to look like an aristocratic lady.
Secondly, the writer suggests that Rembrandt had an exquisite ability of painting light and shadow, but that is not seen in this. In the article, it is said that the face illumination is dulled by the fur coat and no shadow was seen. This is refuted by the professor by mentioning that since the fur coat was added afterward, the shadow and illumination to the face were lost because of it. Also, the lecturer notes that she was wearing a simple collar of light-colored cloth which can reflect the light and can lit face but the fur coat obscured that view too.
Finally, the reader posits that the examination of the back of the painting shows that painting was done on a panel where several pieces of wood glued together, which was not often seen in Rembrandt's painting. On the contrary, the lecturer's position is that, when the fur coat was added, the frame could not include the size of this, and thereby wooden logs are attached.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 136, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'woman'?
Suggestion: Woman
...s that the 'Portrait of an Elderly Women in a White Bonnet' was not his wor...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 68, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...hat the elements in the womens dressing didnt fit together, especially, the fur coat ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, look, moreover, second, secondly, so, in addition, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 12.0772626932 166% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1549.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 326.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75153374233 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61218788323 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515337423313 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 467.1 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.23620309051 182% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.9841999448 49.2860985944 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.153846154 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0769230769 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.84615384615 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.15069498218 0.272083759551 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0644369395164 0.0996497079465 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0796344583536 0.0662205650399 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105379788711 0.162205337803 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0476374924974 0.0443174109184 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 53.8541721854 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.57 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.