3. Rembrandt

리딩 지문 읽기 (3분)

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. For these reasons the painting was removed from the official catalog of Rembrandt’s paintings in the 1930s.


리스닝 듣기



리스닝 스크립트

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 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 illuminates 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 would 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 grander 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”.



30점을 위한 해설

리딩 주장
The painting that is said to be drawn by Rembrandt could not be a work by Rembrandt. (렘브란트가 그렸다고 알려진 어떤 그림이 사실은 렘브란트가 그린 것이 아니다)

첫번째 근거
The woman in the painting is wearing a white linen cap that only servants would wear. Contrary to this, she is wearing a coat with a luxurious fur collar that servants could not afford. This inconsistency is not a style of Rembrandt who exhibited his thoroughness through the details in his paintings. (그림 속에 있는 여자는 하얀 천 모자를 쓰고 있는데, 이것은 당시 하인들이 입는 것이었다. 이와 반대로 그 여자는 비싼 털 깃을 가진 코트를 입고 있으므로 이러한 모순은 디테일에 철저한 렘브란트의 스타일이 아니다)

두번째 근거
Secondly, in the painting, the woman’s face was illuminated by light reflection from below but the dark fur collar below her face would absorb light. Considering Rembrandt was a master of painting light and shadow, this kind of mistake would not have been made by him. (여자의 얼굴은 밑에서 오는 빛 반사에 의해 빛나고 있는데, 얼굴 밑에는 어두운 코트 깃이 있으므로 빛을 흡수했을 것이다. 렘브란트가 명암의 대가였다는 사실을 고려해 보면, 그가 이런 실수를 할리 없다)

세번째 근거
Lastly, unlike the painting which used a panel connected with several pieces of wood, Rembrandt did not use a panel glued together from several pieces of wood. (이 그림은 몇 개의 나무 조각을 연결한 패널을 사용했지만, 렘브란트는 몇 개의 나무 조각을 연결한 패널을 사용하지 않았다)

리스닝 반박
After a thorough re-examination, experts were sure that the painting was a work of Rembrandt. (철저한 재조사 후에 전문가들은 그 그림이 렘브란트의 작품이라고 확신했다)

첫번째 근거
First, the fur collar was not in the original painting but was added by someone who wanted to increase the value of the painting. This explains why the woman in the painting who looked like a servant wore a luxurious fur collar. (털 깃은 원래 그림에는 없었다. 누군가가 나중에 그림의 가치를 올리려고 그 털 깃을 더한 것이다. 이런 사실은 왜 하인이 비싼 털 깃을 입고 있는지 설명해 준다)

두번째 근거
Second, after removing the fur collar, experts discovered there was a light-colored cloth. This explains why the reflection on a woman’s face did not match the fur collar because the light-colored cloth reflected light on parts of the woman’s face. (털 깃을 제거하니까 밝은 색상의 천이 있었는데 이것은 왜 여자의 얼굴위의 반사가 털 깃과 일치하지 않았는지를 설명해 준다. 즉, 이 밝은 색상의 천은 빛을 여자의 얼굴로 반사시켰을 것이다)

세번째 근거
Third, the wood panel was added to the sides and the top in order to make the painting bigger and more valuable. The original painting was painted on a single piece of wood the same way Rembrandt used to. In addition, the wood used in the painting was from the same tree as the wooden panel used in other Rembrandt paintings. (그림을 더 크고 더 가치있게 하기 위해서 옆과 위에 나무 패널이 더해졌다. 원래의 그림은 렘브란트가 하는 방식처럼 하나의 나무 조각위에서 그려졌다. 게다가 그 그림에 사용된 나무는 다른 렘브란트의 그림에서 사용된 나무 패널과 같은 나무였다)