Paul, I'd turn it down too because it is unnerving to think that they don 't appreciate what you do but expect someone to fulfill their own agenda. If they want that painting of their choice then by all means let them stand in line at the next auction and pay for the value of it as it's bidding for. To placate them by doing a copy is an injustice to Magritte. Think about it, you do a painting, ask about a thousand for it but your good friend of a neighbor unbeknownst to you goes to your customer and says they'd do it for a quater of the cost. If you like that sort of cutthroat attitude then you might as well forego any thought accomplishing anything artistically and it would be best to just go and sell shoes.

This issue reminds me of how Robert took on the Chinese website which was copying his work, as well as that of many other artists. Although Magritte is dead, and it's unlikely that anyone will mistake Austin's painting for the real deal, the idea remains the same: copying is wrong. Perhaps there's an opportunity to explore what attracts the client to the painting, and then create a work in a similar vein, possibly featuring the client himself. But why create a reputation as an artist who can copy work well? That will only lead to more work in copying.

First, copying is not an original sin. Many, many artists have learnt their craft by copying. What IS wrong is proclaiming that you have created a work yourself and broadcasting or selling it as such.
Most of us can't afford an original, even if it were available to buy. But many admire and even love great works of art and want a share in them. That explains why artworks are copied.
And today, given that making a living as an artist is becoming increasingly hazardous, selling an artwork of one's own might be a work of art in itself for some!
So let's be practical!
If an artist is going to attempt a copy of Magritte's (or of any) work, his first reference must be to its size. I discovered that the painting is in a private collection, so the original is not accessible unless you know the collector (I don't), or it is lent to a museum somewhere for an exhibition.
The most important factor is, however, the proportions of the work you want to copy. You cannot accurately reproduce a work if your "model" has the wrong proportions. The photo you were given must be distorted or manipulated since Magritte's original is obviously not 2 by 3. Type the title of the painting into google and look at the many images. They are not all the same shape! Do not take a copy of the work from a poster shop because they take the most liberties with the proportions of artworks.
Ask your client how big his copy is to be (the original is 45.67 × 35 inches) and make sure you are working with the correct proportions. Maybe the client would be happy just to have part of the original copied. If he wants a painting that is wider than it is long, you will have to do that anyway.
Divide your photo of the original into grids. There's a lovely old-fashioned programme you can find at http://www.mxac.com.au/oilpaint.htm, which will do this for you and then print the grind over a copy, even in the original size on several sheets of paper. You need not then paint in oils of course, but if you use a colour photo the programme will help you to choose your paint colours as well!
Drawing by using grids is the traditional way of copying and arguably the most accurate unless you possess a projector.
You should then have a scale drawing of the work or even one in the original size. You will certainly have had to procure a support in the correct size, but that is probably the least of your problems.
One short comment on the copying of works by Chinese and other art factories. In those cases the works have been acquired by stealth, i.e. illegally. Normally permission is not asked of the (living) artist, who can, however, try to stop the practice by contacting whoever is doing the reproductions. So if anyone spots a painting reproduced this way, maybe they should contact the artist and inform him or her!

You can find advertisement in high end architecture magazines offering copies of any painting. People are either too cheap or lack the funds to buy the real thing, and want visitors to think they are "real." It's a whole industry, and not all come from China.
On the other hand, maybe whoever commissioned this admires the work and wants it as a homage to Magritte. Or, this painting means something particularly special to him. Their reason for wanting the painting should govern your decision.
Lots of artists have painted copies, "In the manner of ..... " in an effort to learn technique. Not a terribly bad thing to do as long as it is noted as such.
I did a copy of an abstract for a friend. The painting was offered in a commercial catalog so there were dozens if not hundreds of that image. Her goal was only to have something on her wall. I didn't charge her for it because it took me all of fifty minutes to do. She said, "You didn't sign it." Exactly.

There is a reason for the National Gallery's not allowing copyists to copy a painting in its original size. It does not want to foster a forger's crime. As a child I slavishly copied Watteau and other French artists to teach myself to draw. It worked but I am left with a permanent desire for beautiful satin slippers with elaborate bows.

I find this latest article pertinent because so much of modern painting is nothing more than copying photography or many modern painters are just “soft tissue pantographs”. Personally I feel copying photos is strictly a commercial exercise and then only when granted copyright approval by the photographer. I think copying one’s own photography is a tad more ethical but not much improvement aesthetically. Experienced painters are usually able to reference photos without it looking like a photo but even the best will be missing something that can only be faked (usually very poorly even by the skilled) when not in front of the actual item. That is the hard to define feel of place that permeates one when involved in real life, this shows up in the painting no matter how subtle it may seem to some. Thanks for all you do keeping our “painting community” invigorated Robert.

It could be fun to do a "Mad magazine" sort of "spoof": i.e. painting a banana, pineapple, or onion in front of the bowler-hatted figure. Maybe somebody will do that in China.

The question to ask yourself is 'why' does this person want an exact copy of this painting. Is it so he can try to pass it off as the original, perhaps try to sell it as the original? Perhaps a painting that emulates this one but is somewhat different, would be a better way to go? In any event, make sure you sign the back of the painting with your own name, and something like 'after Magritte', so it does not become a forgery.

My response to this artist is the same as yours with the idea/question about what ultimately will be done with this copy, read forgery! I was in the art foundry business decades in Los Angeles and was approached several time during the twenty years to replicate , Picasso, Gaudi and others. Each time I asked why and what was the person planning to do with the work once it was cast into bronze. I never did any the that work knowing that it was probable going to be sold as an original!?

I find the idea of copying Magritte a travesty! As an art history and art teacher for many years, I was careful to tell my students that outside a practice drawing, NO ONE should copy another's work!

Wouldn't Magritte's piece of art still be under copyright protection for copies and derivative works? Life plus 70 years has not yet arrived if Magritte passed in 1964.

I copied a few paintings when I started out -- mainly to learn technique, but also because I really liked a painting and wanted to have the copy in my personal collection. One of the most important things here, I think, is to make sure that the painting is clearly marked as a copy (on the back of the canvas or board if the collector doesn't want it marked on the front). Even if one is doing a copy for a single collector, one can't know what will happen to the copied painting in the future. The collector can die or sell the painting or give it away. Even though a painting can never be exactly copied and an expert will not be deceived, it should be marked as a copy as a matter of fairness (and perhaps law, in some cases).

Interesting that in "Son of Man" the sea horizon and the wall are not level between the two sides of the foreground figure. More "enigma," or just sloppy? (Potentially, if one got the reputation of being enigmatic one could pass off all sorts of screw-ups as creatively intentional!)

Isn't this considered plagiarism? I understand artists have always copied the Masters for training, but when is copying another's work NOT considered plagiarism?

Perhaps part of the problem here is perception. One can clearly be offended by an attempt to make an exact copy of any one else's painting - forgery.

But, if it is a different size and you sign it yourself as well as give credit to the original artist in a way that can't be removed from the 'copy', then one could realize that it is an homage to the original artist.

Someone once said that copying is a sincere form of flattery.....or some such. But, homage derives from 'honor' so...........

Don’t do it! So not cool. They can buy a repro any where. Better choice . Save your integrity.

That is TWO good pieces of advice you gave your questioning artist. Let's see, the original Magritte is worth let's say one mil... I'd replicate it for a fee of oh, let's say one quarter that. But as you say, why bother, a photo-graphics 3-D impasto copy for a couple of thousand dollars is all it's worth.

I have such a rendition of Gauguin’s Wahines done in Switzerland in 1954. My father who bought the one and only reproduction he ever deemed honorable to hang on our walls. I mean this hand painted scene was done brush-stroke-for-brush-stroke, worth its weight in gold then and today. And for legal reasons it's only two centimeters shorter at either ends.

As to Magritte and the art world claiming this or that about the meaning of The Son of Man, I say pfueee, it's simply a William Tell syndrome Magritte had compounded by being childless... lol

Some artists incorporate the work of others in their paintings as an homage to that artist. Vivian Thierfeilder comes to mind, as she does stunning watercolours which frequently contain references to other works of art, especially portraiture, as in the hauntingly beautiful portraits by Modigliani. Susan Abbott is another. For me, this is beyond copying, and makes perfect sense, as it reflects the images that exist in the subliminal space of the artist, perpetually hovering just out of literal sight.

I bought an old pantograph from the collectibles section of a thrift store and have used it ever since to give me a starting point for paintings that I do. It may be a crutch for the exacting task of drawing perfectly, but I like it. I use it. It is my friend.

A brilliant response--your best, I think.

At the very least it would have to be titled 'Study of Magritte's Son of Man' or some such.

I see nothing wrong with copying the work of a well-known artist, if there is a good reason and proper attribution is given. Years ago, when I was living in Sarasota, FL and very new at art, the movie “Portrait of Jennie” was coming to town. As a promotion, the theater had a contest for the best copy of Robert Brackman’s painting of Jennifer Jones made for the movie. There was only one other entry besides mine, and I won hands down. My copy was excellent, but smaller than the original, and was signed by me, “after Brackman.” It is now with a relative in Canada. The prize was movie passes.

Someone reported to me that he saw the promo postcard I sent around for my first show being copied on someone's home easel. I was flattered that it was so admired, puzzled they didn't come to the show and purchase the original, and/but annoyed that they made this awful attempt. In retrospect it wasn't such a great painting, so who cares? However, the ethical art community uses copying in the classroom "for educational purposes only." Attempts for any other purpose are forgeries. "Appropriations," which are always in some way altered, can add humor and/or meaning to a larger work, as some others have stated. Thanks, Robert.

I enjoy reading your posts and often have discussions with another artist friend about them. I have to say, this is one for the books and you handled it far better than I would have done. Congratulations! It takes a lot of courage to ask someone to copy another artists work and to ask them to copy it "exactly" takes even more courage. For the person to agree to do this copy utterly amazes me! I understand times are hard, the artist is no longer alive and commissions are challenging in the best of circumstances, but this has a moral factor to it that rivals Monsanto! Is it even legal? Please, my fellow artists, consider carefully the repercussions before you say "Yes" to such requests. Paul, you are very lucky to receive such a kind response from Robert.

I am ignorant of copyright law, but what I'd be tempted to do is first a black and white copy, then re-arrange, then adopt a totally different color scheme. The question to me is, what is a legitimate response to the artistic insight of someone else?

At a plain air event a woman who was watching me paint asked for my name and then said – oh, I know your work, in a class that I attend the instructor gave us prints of your paintings to copy as exercises. First I hoped that she mixed me up with someone else, but when she said who the instructor was, it was indeed a painter who had asked me questions about my painting process. I was quite upset that he didn’t ask my permission to use my art in his classes. Then I forgot all about it until I was reminded of it by reading these comments. I guess there isn’t really any harm done to me, it’s just annoying to know that someone is taking advantage of my work. Alas, there will always be those kind of characters, I’ll probably forget all about it again by tomorrow…

Although we've never personally met, I so look forward to your regular visits to my home/computer. Your observations and writings are a delicious "fruit-salad" treat of humour, insight, irony, gentle crits, education and inspiration. Keep them coming, as they are gifts to all of us that look forward to them. Thank you for your artistic enhancement and often, tongue-in-cheek comments.

Robert, you are a good and wise friend with as much talent and good humor with words as you have with a paintbrush.

I too would turn it down. Once something is done it is done.

I wouldn't do it either. I know that copying the masters used to be part of art school courses, but painting a copy for someone else, who presumably is going to pay for the result - is this legitimate? Cumbria, UK

Now that most of the aunties and uncles who enriched and empowered my girlhood in arts have passed away, I am still not lonely - there is the other Uncle Bob in Robert Genn - you must be related somehow...you always say the right thing - just like they did. Like this one on ENIGMA - I have the knack for spydom... When I do one of my "working on it" studies - part of my mind is working hard on the enigmas - what will show and what will not show. where will the eye be drawn and how. Somehow if we belabor such subtleties, it really makes a mess, and the grace in which we find our way thru it is the thing. And half the fun.

I recently discovered three comments of mine in your "Resource of Art Quotations". Thank you for the honor.

My question is how does the client want him to sign the "work" - who's name does he want to see on it?

Having been trained in the late 70's when copying anything was somewhat taboo, I have come full circle in 30 years. I recently began transposing master works to research a piece I am developing. I use the grid and find it an excellent way to rediscover the construction of the image and the artists' process.

I don't think tracing a projection will have the same rewards as genuine discovery and is therefore unlikely to yield exciting results.

I do agree that it is important to get the largest digital file possible, but to print it out same size as the original.

Some years ago I was asked by a client to copy a late 19th cent equestrian portrait painting she had (unsigned, so we didn't know who the original artist was) in order to settle a family argument over who was to take possession of it following the death of the aged aunt who owned it as this was not made clear in her will! I duly obliged, although I made slight alterations to the format in my version which I thought was an improvement on the composition of the original. Client was delighted but the irony was that there was then an argument over who got mine and who got the original - they both preferred the newer version!

I have neither the years, nor the canvass to complete my own visions.
Why would I want to expend myself on the failed attempt to redo someone else's craftwork ?

Whether an artist should "copy" anyone else's paintings or photographs, or one's own photographs, is a thorny question. I have done a number of commissions using the client's photographs for reference. There is usually nothing else to work with but those photos. "The hand of the artist" always shows through to keep the work from looking exactly like the reference photo. Is this not art? I know how to draw but to save time and labor, I use my own photos as reference material, especially when it comes to shots of birds and other things in motion or images shot while traveling. Reference photos are invaluable if you are trying to catch light and shadow outdoors. I consider reference photos part of the creative process. The process goes like this: I am struck by an image; I want to paint it; I compose a shot with my digital camera and photograph it; I sometimes manipulate the photo; I enlarge the image with a grid; and finally I paint the image on a canvas or paper. I believe the hand of the artist always shows through. Is that not art? Vermeer would have used a digital camera if he had had one. Occasionally I copy a painting I like in order to understand the technique but those paintings remain in a drawer and are never exhibited or sold. I never sign them and always write on the back "copy of ____ by _____."

As one who has had her painting 'copied', then transferred to t-shirts sold at a major event, I can attest to the fact that it's NOT flattering! However, the public, whether aware or ignorant know the typical artist will not sue due to the time/expense involved. I know an artist who's work is all copied and she either sells the work or has it displayed in public places such as restaurants. She's even won awards entering copied work in juried shows. I find this practice unethical and deplorable. Recently, I mentioned to the artist she needs to make a note the work is, "In the manner or a reproduction of" when signing it. One has to wonder how many buyers have been duped by copies?