This past weekend, I was in Los Angeles meeting up with a few friends. Without looking up at the restaurant's sign, we walked into a nice-enough spot. Worn, communal table, bare brick walls, unfinished wood floors. It looked like it had been there for many, many years. I also had a sudden wave of deja-vu.
The authentic, neighborhood cafe I walked into was Le Pain Quotidien, and of course, it was very much like the one I had been to in Claremont a month ago. And in New York a few years ago.
There are more than 80 stores in 12 countries. I was surprised to find out that the one I recently walked into was completely new. There's artifice here (these tables have been here so long they have dents in them!) but it's forgivable. The communal table, the hand-written menus on chalkboard, the stale bread used as menu holders - they're cues for authenticity that many companies have used and overused. Then why does it all feel okay and why does everyone look like they're having the time of their lives? How does each restaurant (all EIGHTY of them) manage to feel local and authentic? And what's the importance of authenticity when fake is done so well?
It seems the new authenticity is less about the stuff and the architecture, and more about the sincerity of interactions that are afforded inside: the nuanced way the waitstaff suggests that ordering off the menu isn't a privilege but a right, the way the ends of the tables are rounded (which is formally, a little ugly) so that every friend around the table feels like they're sharing in the same conversation. The experience is a construct of the way the space acts, less about the way it looks.
When brand meets architecture, it doesn't always look this good.
It's interesting to think about an environment as an interface for an experience. In that case, does the principle "best interface is the most invisible one" hold true?
Also, you pose an interesting question:
what's the importance of authenticity when fake is done so well?
This question makes me think that authenticity is natural when it's an implication of what you do, not a purpose. Does authenticity still matter if fake is composed so well? I think it ultimately does, though in the speedy emergence of novelties, we often don't visit back what worked and what didn't.
Posted by: Engin | May 05, 2009 at 05:01 PM
I like that.
You can't design in authenticity, but it can happen as an outcome of the pursuit of other things. Kind of like "community" in that sense - another great, abstract notion that you can't design for (too forced).
Posted by: Dana Cho | May 05, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Awesome post. Love it.
Posted by: metacool | May 15, 2009 at 07:53 AM