Hi, Luschen, this is my third integrated essay.

The reading material:
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.

The listening material:
Everything you just read about “Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet” is true, and yet after a thorough re-examination of the painting, a panel of experts has recently concluded that it’s indeed a work by Rembrandt. Here is why.
First, the fur collar. X-rays and analysis of the pigments in the paint have shown that the fur collar wasn’t part of the original painting. The fur collar was painted over the top of the original painting about a hundred years after the painting was made. Why? Someone probably wanted to increase the value of the painting by making it look like a formal portrait of an aristocratic lady.
Second, the supposed error with light and shadow. Once the paint of the added fur color was removed, the original painting could be seen. In the original painting, the woman is wearing a simple collar of light-colored cloth. The light-colored cloth of this collar reflects light that illuminated part of the woman’s face. That’s why the face is not in partial shadow. So in the original painting, light and shadow are very realistic and just what we could expect from Rembrandt.
Finally, the wood panel. It turns out that when the fur collar was added, the wood panel was also enlarged with extra wood pieces glued to the sides and the top to make the painting more grand and more valuable. So the original painting is actually painted on a single piece of wood, as would be expected from a Rembrandt painting. And in fact, researchers have found that the piece of wood in the original form of “Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet” is from the very same tree as the wood panel used for another painting by Rembrandt, his “Self-portrait with a Hat”.

My essay:
The reading states that the painting is not created by Rembrandt and provides three reasons of support. Though the professors confirmed these reasons are true, he claims that this painting is truly the work of Rembrandt and gives further explantations for the points in the reading.
First, the article claims that the woman’s dressing is not consistent, as the cap is for servant while the fur collar is too luxurious for a servant. The professor challenges this point by saying that the fur collar is not the original design. He tells us that the change of the collar was made by someone hundreds of years later, perhaps with the intention of increasing the value of the portrait.
Second, the reading passage points out that the light and shadow do not fit together, for the face is illuminated by light, but the dark collar ought to absorb light. However, the lecturer says that this can also be attributed to the removal of the original collar. In original painting, the collar is made of simple light cloth, so this collar reflects color, as the painting shows. The original realistic style is also in tune with the author.
Third, the reading maintains that the painting is made of glued wood panel, as Rembrandt have never use this material to paint his works, this is contradicted with common sense. The speaker opposes this point by explaining that the original painting was created in a single piece of wood. We also learn that the original wood of this work is the same as Rembrandt’s another work–The South Portrait for the Hat.(In fact,the correct name is “Self-Portrait with a Hat”) The change of the material was made by others, who wanted to enlarge the painting and made it more grand and valuable.

Hi,Luschen,As you see,I made a mistake when I took notes in the listening,but I did not realize it until I see the original transcript. Will this mistake made my grade lower in the real test?

TOEFL listening lectures: A university lecture by a professor of Anthropology