TPO 3

The reading passage examines the issue of authority of a painting, and the professor 's lecture focuses on the same topic. However, he claims that the painting is actually painted by Rembrandt, which contradicts what the reading states. And in the lecture, he provides three compelling arguments to support his idea.

First, although the reading passage suggests that the woman's dress in the painting was portrayed in a different way, the professor argues in the lecture that the fur collar was added after the painting was finished 100 years. This is because someone wants to increase this painting's value by making the woman look like an aristocrat. In fact, the original painting is portrayed in a consistent way.

In addition, contrary to the statement in the reading that the light and shadow don’t fit together in the painting, the professor contends that the original painting's light and shadow fit perfectly if the added fur collar is removed. This is to say, it is the added fur collar make the light and shadow look inconsistent. Because the original collar is in lighted color, which makes the woman's face in a realistic light manner.

Finally, the professor asserts that the original portrait was painted on a single wood, which is the same with one of Rembrandt's self-portrait, whereas the author of the reading states that the wood is a panel made of many wood glued together. The professor points out that someone broadened this wood in order to make it look bigger and more valuable, which means the inconsistent part is added later, and the original part shows no signs of inconsistence.