TPO31 Integrated writing

The reading passage presents some problems with the painting of the woman to prove it is not an artwork by the well-known Dutch painter Rembrandt. Although the lecturer admits such observations on the portrait are true, she presents the conclusion from art experts that this portrait was one of Rembrandt's paintings.

First, the writer points out that the luxurious fur collar the woman in the portrait is wearing does not correlate to her linen cap that only servants would put on. This contrasts to Rembrandt's eye for details in painting subjects' clothing and thus mustn't have been painted by him. However, according to findings from the art panel, the fur collar was not part of the original painting. She further explains someone had painted an expensive fur collar on top of the painting in order to increase its value.

Second, it is argued in the article that the light and shadow in the portrait look off and do not go well with each other meanwhile the Dutch artist was a master of painting light and shadow. The professor rebuts this argument when she says the elements were indeed painted in a realistic way. In fact, the woman was wearing simple light-colored clothes in the original painting, which explains why the shadow were not reflected on her face partially.

Third, the reading passage discussed how the panel the portrait was painted on was made of several wood pieces glued together, indicating that it is not Rembrandt’s artwork since there was no other panel of his paintings made this way. Nevertheless, the professor correctly notes that the method of sticking extra wood around the corners of the painting was to make it look more grand and Rembrandt was not responsible for doing it. In addition, when re-examining the original painting, researchers have found that this wooden panel was made from the same tree as another panel of Rembrandt, suggesting they are both products of his creativity.