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.
In his commentary, the author argues that the painting “Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet” does not belong to Rembrandt for several inconsistencies in the style of painter. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She uses the following evidence to suggest that the painting could actually be a creature of Rembrandt.
The first contradicting point is the dress of the woman. The author of the reading claims that the wearing of the woman is inconsistent with the master’s attention to details, who would not paint a woman wearing a poor hat accompanied with luxurious coat. This point is challenged by the lecturer who says that the x-ray analyses revealed that the colour of the coat was made a hundred years later than the original painting. This was made by someone who wanted to increase the value of the art.
Another controversial issue is the made errors in painting of shadows. According to the reading passage the shadows on the painting are made unnaturally, with mistakes. The lecturer rebuts this argument, saying that the light colour of the dress of the woman changes the display of shadows on her face, while the other shadows are painted realistically.
The third aspect of the debate is the panels, on which Rembrandt usually didn’t work. The author puts forth the idea that the painter never used glued wood in his work. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that the detailed analyses demonstrates the similarity between the tree used in the discussed painting and the tree used in auto-portrait of the master with a hat.
To sum up, the author of the reading passage and the lecturer has different points of view. While the former believes that those findings on the art questions authorship, the latter brings additional evidence to support the idea that the painting actually belongs to Rembrandt.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 86, 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.
...on which Rembrandt usually didn’t work. The author puts forth the idea that the pai...
^^^
Line 4, column 169, 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.
...nter never used glued wood in his work. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits tha...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, if, so, third, while, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1553.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 314.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94585987261 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69051740942 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493630573248 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 462.6 419.366225166 110% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.2285755344 49.2860985944 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.533333333 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9333333333 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.8 7.06452816374 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0607256487807 0.272083759551 22% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0223492109807 0.0996497079465 22% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.033017825601 0.0662205650399 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0397263611644 0.162205337803 24% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0381978756534 0.0443174109184 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.