"THE JUDD FORCE": DEFENDERS OR TYRANTS? (UPDATED VERSION)
UPDATED VERSION to correct a mischaracterization of the KK situation.
N.B.: This has been UPDATED! to correct something (which is pretty much left in, so you can see).
N.B.: We are moderate FANS of Judd furniture and other stuff, just before you get p*ssed off.
Dear Snoops,
There is a particular power held by art-and-furniture-guy DONALD JUDD (R.I.P.), i.e. the long shadow of his legacy, i.e. his “legacy force”, a.k.a. “THE JUDD FORCE”.
Within bubbles of “ART FURNITURE” folks, Judd is a kind of constant presence, supreme being, patron saint, even delighted at in ode-mock-reference spoonerisms.
He was also, as is sadly super standard of really “successful” types, kinda arrogant. (Very smart and stuff; says lots of things we agree with; but arrogant.) And this is our interpretation, and the particular bias of “FOR SCALE”, and we shan’t expand on this, but The Market kinda loves arrogance and so many are encouraged to double-down on really super elite views rather than democratic, expansive ones. (BUMMER #1)
Anyway, this kind of “Visionary”’s Arrogance is important to note.
The JUDD FORCE is not simply one-directional, however. It is not just “US” admiring “JUDD”.
NEWTON’S THIRD LAW, and Judd Force Guiding Principle: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction i.e. as much as there is admiration and love for Judd by the furniture-bubble “masses”, there is, honestly, some equal disdain by The Judd Force for those masses.
And that is also a bummer. (BUMMER #2)
The Judd Force (embodied today by “THE JUDD FOUNDATION”, run by the Judd children), for better or worse, has at its core the very “tricky-toxic-sometimes-important-sometimes-goes-too-far” mission of “ASSET MANAGEMENT”. This is because a JUDD CHAIR (as a random example) or JUDD TABLE (as random example #2) are not “JUST” furniture, they are kinda sacred.
(TOPIC WE’RE AVOINDING #1: we will not be commenting on “IS FURNITURE ART?”)
“ASSET MANAGEMENT” and THE MASSES (YOU AND US)
Assets:
The recent CELEBR*TY collision of the Judd Force, which truly is a bit “Whatever”, does kinda hold a mirror up to, like, the State of Furniture.
You HAVE seen this:
We can’t imagine having NOT seen it by this point. But, for posterity:
In a tour of her offices for “SKKN”, K*m Kardash*an notes some JUDD CHAIRS and TABLES (she LOVES them). Incidentally, they are FAKES. And THAT IS A TOPIC FOR ANOTHER TIME. (TOPIC WE’RE AVOIDING #2: “DUPES”, “FAKES”, KNOCK-OFFS” – frankly, they are a bummer [BUMMER #3] But, for whatever reason, also not a hill we are going to die on. At least not today. For those dying on the hill, PLEASE REFER YOUR HERO “BE ORIGINAL AMERICAS”)
ANYWAY, AS YOU ARE SURELY WELL AWARE: the JUDD FOUNDATION (run by Judd kiddos Flavin and Rainer) are displeased, ETC., ergo are SUING and taking a variety of other legal action against a bunch of other folks too.
***MAJOR CORRECTION TO THIS NEXT SECTION BELOW***
D.Y.K.: K*m K was offered some genuines (at a discount!) in the wake of the video and she declined?
What we go on to talk about in THIS NEXT SECTION is a kind of odd phenomenon in the gallery world, and we are very focsued in on a JUDD FORCE lawyer saying they don’t want to “get mixed up” with KK.
So try to extract below the fact that KK was, in fact, offered to correct her Major Ooops and didn’t, but there’s still a point to be made about not-rare ‘tude in HIGH-POWERED ART-DÉCOR, as evidenced by the fact it was used in a lawyerly strategy. (A part of the asset management mindset.)
And, then, the rest beyond that HOLDS (i.e. how protection of asset beyond just COPY CRACKDOWN is a real bummer).
GETTING TO “THE POINT WE WANT TO MAKE”:
Our tangent:
We would MOST like to draw your attention to some TOP TIER “ATTITUDE” directed at KK via the JUDD FOUNDT. lawyer (sourced here from the NYT*mes):
“It is lower quality than Donald Judd’s furniture,” said Megan Bannigan, a lawyer representing the foundation. “We don’t want to be mixed up with Kim Kardashian. We respect what she does, but we don’t want to be involved with this.”
REWINDING A TAD:
AS DISCUSSED-ish, there is a category of “DÉCOR” that is treated primarily as “ASSET”, pretty much approximating the way we care about “ART” – so, like, that Judd décor is gallery fodder. IMPORTANT! Judd is “gallery furniture” – not in terms of where it lives its life (Home, often), but how it is sold (JUDD FURNITURE IS ALSO numbered/“EDITIONED” just like “art”).
And, let us recall, gallerists love to develop a $Market$ kinda based on the elusive-exclusive nature of “GOOD TASTE”, and they must control things to a radical degree so they remain in “GOOD TASTE”, otherwise: will people pay? (TOPIC WE’RE AVOIDING #3, for the most part: capitalism.)
BUMMER #4: It is our philosophy that no such thing as “GOOD TASTE” exists. (This differs from "good décor”, which is more about just being thoughtful and personal.) “GOOD TASTE” is used as a tool of hierarchy – like, how “Old $” looks down on “New $”, like… truly what the f*ck? Bummer #4 is therefore “people trying to rarefy taste”.
Ok, ENOUGH CONTEXT:
THE POINT WE WANT TO MAKE
… has everything to do with MEGAN BANN*GAN, the lawyer, and what it says about the P.O.V. of the Judd Force.
Basically, note that she did NOT say this:
“We are worried about dupes! And it’s a big problem if KK - who is major - made this, like, maybe mistake (?) of thinking they were real.
Dupes are, like, totally taking over and we just want to ensure that the Judd Force can continue its work in honoring Donald etc.”
(WE TOTALLY GET THIS!)
Instead, Bann*gan was like:
“We don’t want an association with K*m Kardash*an; and these are cheap as f*ck dupes which makes it worse.”
This is f*cked.
WHY IS THIS F*CKED? (ACCORDING TO “FOR SCALE”)
*AMENDED TEXT*
As many will know, it happens all the time that a fancy-”serious” gallery will not want to sell to someone who they think is kind of awful or has a sh*t “eye”, because the perceived tackiness of the buyer reflects on the artist/gallery or whatever. (ANON GOSSIP: We heard from a close FOR SCALE pal that they were advised not to work with [GALLERY NAME REDACTED] because “THEY WILL SELL TO ANYONE.” And that was intended as the worst thing ever.)
When the Judd Force *Lawyer* is saying “We don’t wanna get mixed up with KK”, this is THE ARROGANCE OF ASSET MANAGEMENT. (Here deployed as lawyerly strategy.)
It is not enough for a chair to be made “Elite” by it costing $9,000 (FACTUAL CHAIR COST FOR JUDD CHAIR PICTURED ABOVE), Judd Force *lawyer* hints at something more – which is what we take issue with. That to be ‘mixed up with KK’ is bad in and of itself.
“TASTE” IS NOT JUST A “CUTE, SUPERFICIAL, FUN” THING
More “FOR SCALE” philosophy: always question those who say they have “GOOD TASTE”. Good according to whom?! Much to say about KK, but where does one draw the line about who is “WORTHY” of a thing or not?
Yes, it may seem fun and silly and superficial to consider “TASTE”, and to sorta get critical about décor selections – WE DO IT!
Yes, there is success and failure in décor; but ripping apart décor should be preserved for Décor gaslighting, where we are told something is f*cking brilliant when really it’s just “Expensive” or “Celebrity” or “Trend” or “Marketing”, etc.
But, to preserve the value of something by saying it’s “too good” for some contexts or people – that is a vastly different thing. You MAY “not like something”; you MAY NOT believe “something is too good for someone”.
This is not ideal for humanity.
Taste is the product of a lot of different structures and personal experiences – like, maybe you like doilies because your nice grandma liked ‘em. Is that, like, good or bad taste? Maybe you’re rich as all f*ck but you love to cosplay poor and shop at IKEA. Is that good or bad taste? (Point is: questions of taste are usually THE WRONG QUESTIONS.)
FAKES = BAD. KK = honestly, BAD. JUDD = we think whatever you think, we’re kinda neutral tbh. KK saying FAKES are REAL = BAD (and maybe just a mistake?). The Judd Force saying they don’t wanna get “mixed up with” KK? = SH*TTY MOVE BY JUDD FORCE.
GENERAL CRACKDOWN: BAD LOOK FOR THE JUDD FORCE
This is not *just* about KK, however. And that’s where we kinda worry about The Judd Force.
Basically, anyone who made super min*mal plywood stuff and wrote “in the spirit of J*dd” or “a variation on J*dd” or has Judd in, like, some kind of collage just for lols - No. These folks have been recipients of Cease and Des*st orders from extremely fancy laywers. (The Judd Force doesn’t want to be mixed up with ANYONE right now.) These are individuals who make furniture, not Big Celebr*ties or Big Companies.
We are not talking about people who COPIED Donald – just like, as mentioned, he’s some folks’ patron saint, so these are odes. Frankly, it seems suitable that if you operate in Judd’s legacy-shadow, you’d choose to acknowledge him.
JUDD, in his “famous” 1993 essay “It’s Hard to Find a Good Lamp”, quotes socialist icon NOAM CHOMSKY, bizarrely.
But, to paraphrase CHOMSKY ourselves (a - socialist - icon!): Was Einstein precious about his theory of relativity? No. Not how progress works. A good idea has the right to be f*cked around with.
(We’re not talking about copying.)
What do you think Chomsky would have to say about The Judd Force stopping individual furniture builders from taking Judd’s ideas and running with them?
Is it a “GOOD LOOK” for The Judd Force to crack down on really f*cking small, chill furniture makers who credit Judd? LET US ASK SOME CEASE & DESIST RECIPIENTS how they feel (anonymously):
PERSON #1:
“I think Kim K can be pretty problematic a lot of the time, but I do think that there's a bit of an elitist bent to the Judd Foundation's comments.”
PERSON #2:
“I guess it edges on conspiracy, but suing a pariah of high-culture like KK is one way to reinstall an organization at the forefront of the collective consciousness.”
“The righteousness of Rainer Judd’s statements regarding protectionism recalls my strong desire for an inheritance tax.” (LOL!)
PERSON #3:
“They said they don’t want to be ‘mixed up’ with her. They’re worried she will tarnish the name of Judd. Who would ever affiliate Donald Judd with a Kardashian? Well, people probably will now.”
Collectively, BUMMER #5.
We couldn’t agree more.
SUMMARY
Fakes are bad.
“Not wanting to get mixed up with” because of someone’s “TASTE” level is morally super dubious.
Making sure that REAL Judds are treated with some reverence and, like, nobody outright copies and pretends they were “REAL” – totally!
Barricading Judd against anyone who is inspired by it? BUMMER.
Oof, ok. You’re probably glad to know that: That’s all! Until next time.
Love and good luck,
I'm curious who is making the official judd furniture now, and if the quality is the same as when he was alive. Yrs ago I knocked on his soho door before he died to look at a bookcase i saw from the street. The person who answered told me it was private but when I told him I was struck by the beauty of the bookcase, he invited me in and let me look at it. Incredible craftsmanship, no visible joinery, all blind joints, and made by Japanese cabinet makers who were there too. They didnt speak english so I couldnt delve into convo with them. It was a fun experience. And I think some of his furniture does mix art and craftsmanship resulting in a hybrid object.
Everything I needed to learn about in architecture school is in this essay.