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 lecture and the reading are both discussing the controversy about whether a painting known as Portrait Of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet was done by the 17th century painter Rembrandt. While the reading states that there are issues with the claim that the painting was painted by Rembrandt. The lecture opposes this by saying that recent researches came to the conclusion that indeed, this portrait was painted by Rembrandt.
First of all, the reading passage casts doubts to the way the painting of the woman dress was painted. It explains that the fur collar and the linen cap woren by the woman are not of the same social status, and that such a detail would not miss Rembrandt. The lecture however dimisses this claim by showing that the fur collar was actually added a hundred years later and that it was not originally in the painting. According to the lecture, the person who added it, may thought that it would have increased the value of the portrait.
Next, the reading points out that the light in the face of the woman is not appropriate, as what is below her face is a dark fur collar, therefore it is not a Rembrandt’s work. The lecture opposes this view by claiming that after removing the added fur collar, the lights were showen to be realistic, therefore, the painting is indeed Rembrandt’s art.
Finally, the reading claims that it is not Rembrandt’s work because the back of the painting showed that it was made of a couple of wood pieces glued. The reading passage adds that Rembrandt did indeed used wood panel but it explains that he did not glue wood pieces together. The lecture contradicts this idea by stating that there was wood added to the side. Furthermore, it stated that the research showed that original wood used for the painitng is from the same tree used by Rembrandt in his other work in which he portraited himself.
By the way, I just noticed that my essay is 330 words. While ETS says that an effective response would be between 125 and 200. Do you think such thing would affect the score?, keeping in mind that I think i didn’t add extra unnecessary stuff.
TOEFL listening discussions: Where does this conversation most likely take place?