The reading and the lecture are both about doubting the portrait of a woman by Rembrandt. The author of the reading feels that the portrait was not made by Rembrandt. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. He is of the opinion that the portrait’s original painter is Rembrandt.
To begin with, the author argues that there is an inconsistent point about the dress of a woman and her coat. The woman in the portrait is wearing a servant cap but a luxurious dress that made of a fur collar. Mostly, low-level person cannot afford to buy a luxury dress. So it doesn’t make sense and Rembrandt is known to have details on his paintings. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that the woman’s dress and hat fit together in the original painting. She insists that the woman was originally wearing simple clothes that match her cap.However, after 100 years, someone adds the luxurious coat maybe to add value on the painting. Moreover, it is obvious that it is Rembrandt’s portrait because it was proven by X-ray and checked by some experts.
Secondly, the writer suggests that the lighting and shadow does not match with the woman’s face. In the article, it is said that the woman wears a fur collar. Hence, the fur collar must absorb light instead of reflecting it on her face. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that she was originally wearing a simple light dress that has perfect reflection on her face. He elaborates on this by bringing up the point that the original painting has good lighting and shadow which Rembrandt is known for.
Finally, the author posits that Rembrandt did not use a lot of pieces of wood on this portrait. Additionally, he has never used glued pieces of panel. In contrast, the lecturer’s position is different. He notes that when someone added the coat on the painting, the panel was narrow for the extra picture. Therefore, he used several pieces of another woods and pasted them together