[1] For decades, art historians believed that the vibrant blue pigment in Johannes Vermeer’s paintings was derived exclusively from ultramarine, a costly paint made from crushed lapis lazuli. [2] Vermeer's lavish use of this expensive material contributed significantly to the chronic debt that plagued his family. [3] However, recent chemical analysis of several canvases, including Girl with a Pearl Earring, reveals a more calculating reality: Vermeer frequently blended ultramarine with smalt, a cheaper pigment made from ground cobalt glass. [4] This blending technique allowed him to achieve his signature luminous glazes without depleting his scarce resources. [5] By layering the cheaper smalt underneath a thin topcoat of pure ultramarine, Vermeer created the optical illusion of deep, costly blue while conserving his precious supply of lapis lazuli.
The writer is considering adding the following sentence to the paragraph:
"Lapis lazuli was imported to Europe primarily from mines in northeastern Afghanistan, making the mineral more valuable than gold at the time."
Should the writer make this addition?
- AYes, because it provides historical context explaining the extreme cost of ultramarine, which supports the paragraph's discussion of Vermeer's financial challenges.
- BYes, because it explains the chemical composition of lapis lazuli, clarifying how Vermeer was able to create the optical illusion described in the passage.
- No, because it departs from the paragraph's focus on Vermeer's specific pigment-blending techniques to discuss the geographical source and trade value of lapis lazuli.Cevap
- DNo, because it introduces synonym redundancy by repeating the definition of ultramarine already established in the first sentence.