Kim Kardashian is lying about her office interiors

In Milan, the days of the Design Week are approaching, but the most buzzing news regarding the world of interior art at the moment comes from the United States, specifically from the lips of Kim Kardashian. While a few months ago the whole world marveled at the minimalist perfection of her company's office, Skims, including a 3D model of her brain, in the last few hours resurfaced a video tour of the studio where Kardashian exclaims: «these tables by Donald Judd are truly incredible and blend perfectly with the chairs». An innocuous statement, one might say, if it weren't for yesterday's Judd Foundation (which oversees the preservation and dissemination of the artist's legacy) suing the entrepreneur. The tables are not by Donald Judd, and Kim Kardashian has never owned any work by the artist.

According to the New York Times, both Kim Kardashian, who claimed to own Donald Judd tables, and the interior design company Clements Design of West Hollywood, which designed the office of the Skims founder, have been sued. The Judd Foundation accuses the company of having copied two original pieces by the American artist, namely the La Mansana 22 table (priced at $90,000) and the 84 chair ($9,000). In support of the Judd Foundation's accusations, a bill from Clements Design of West Hollywood was presented describing the furniture as «in the style of Donald Judd», along with evidence that, of the three authentic tables sold in the last 15 years, none were purchased by Kim Kardashian.

The Judd Foundation has long been trying to warn Kim Kardashian of her false claims. Three days after the video was released, they demanded its removal, the tables be destroyed and recycled, and for Kim Kardashian to offer her public apologies, but a spokesperson for Kim Kardashian's team instead proposed updating the video caption with a correction and a supportive post on social media. Interviewed by The Cut, representatives of the company that handled the furniture for Kardashian stated that there are «obvious key differences» between the original work and the "copy," and that they want to «resolve this matter amicably»