Self-Forgery?

When I sign a document with my own signature, that signature is always an authentic "original" no matter how similar it is to the signature I made before it. Apparently not so with works of art! A recent article in The Independent discusses René Magritte's forgery of his own work, suggesting, indeed, that an artist can actually forge himself. I'm inclined to call this something else, like "deceptive creation of copies," but we nonetheless have two paintings entitled The Flavor of Tears, nearly identical to one another (down to caterpillar-holes) and both painted by Magritte. Magritte apparently also forged the works of other artists like Picasso and was well-acquainted with the problems of both originality and the international art market. The article suggests that a lot of Magritte's reason for making the copy was to make money, but then why not create a similar, but not identical piece? Magritte was apparently having a laugh at art collectors and possibly making an artistic statement in addition to making some money.

 I find this story interesting in that Magritte's "forgery" of his own work actually makes both works copies and eliminates the possibility of an original. Artists often create multiple prints of works, but each new print diminishes the value of the previous ones. I need to re-read Walter Benjamin's "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," but I feel that there is much to be said here in terms of reproducing art. Magritte created two identical works which are both the original and copy, as if to say, if it's impossible to tell which is the original and which the copy, does it even matter?