Arch Digest is a terrible place to read about anything related to art or design.
Judd was a seminal artist, and has some fantastically sharp essays(0), which are well worth reading. I agree that the chairs are not practical, but conceptually I think they're brilliant. Having such a pure vision (of reducing an object to its most essential form) and executing on it, I think is admirable. I think you're missing the point if you approach Judd from a practical position, and disregard the value of his ideas.
But is it reasonable to call that its most essential form when that form is so anatomically wrong?
In other words, if a chair so badly fits most humans, should it be called a chair? A sphere can be used as a chair, and it is even simpler or more pure design-wise, but we don’t call it a chair.
Don's rebuttal; "I am often told that the furniture is not comfortable, and in that not functional. The source of the question is in the overstuffed bourgeois Victorian furniture, which, as I said, never ceased. The furniture is comfortable to me. Rather than making a chair to sleep in or a machine to live in, it is better to make a bed. A straight chair is best for eating or writing. The third position is standing." - 'It's Hard To Find A Good Lamp' 1993
No, narrow-hipped perhaps. Just look at those awful, awful chairs. Nothing whatsoever that admits a human being will sit in them. No, its hunky-dory goofy thinking that leads to 'it looks like a chair, so it must be a chair'. Only an artist could think that.
Sure furniture could be pretty. But it has to, at root, function for humans.
I'm happy for you, that you are so secure in your world view. Personally I try to challenge mine as often as possible, and avoid dismissing things before I understand them. I hoped that you might find a quick introduction to a booming movement in design and art interesting, I'm sorry I wasted your time!
With all that superior learning about what's true furniture and what's not, I look forward to seeing you attending a staff meeting in a plywood box chair. I'm sure the joy of its beauty will still be with you as you go to the chiropractor for weekly treatments.
Listen, don't feel sad about still missing the point with Judd after 5 days, it's not that embarrassing. I almost feel the need to help you understand it. You can bring a horse to water I suppose...
Maybe you should consider some Superior Learning TM, and stop having fantasies about staff meetings or whatever.
(in all seriousness, it's been fun sparring with you)
Judd was a seminal artist, and has some fantastically sharp essays(0), which are well worth reading. I agree that the chairs are not practical, but conceptually I think they're brilliant. Having such a pure vision (of reducing an object to its most essential form) and executing on it, I think is admirable. I think you're missing the point if you approach Judd from a practical position, and disregard the value of his ideas.
(0) https://juddfoundation.org/artist/writing/ ("It's hard to find a good lamp" and "Some aspects of colour in general..." are good places to start)