What’s interesting to me is how functional this is, not just decorative.
The fake food isn’t about realism for its own sake, but about reducing ambiguity: you instantly understand portion size, ingredients, and even relative price without sharing a language.
In a way it feels like a very physical form of UX design, solving a real communication problem long before digital menus or translations were common.
I’m curious whether this tradition persists mainly out of nostalgia now, or if restaurants still see measurable benefits from it.
[deleted]
> Japanese people like to say that they “eat with their eyes,” relishing the colors, shapes, and textures of a dish before it ever hits the tongue
That's interesting, because, as a French person, I'm used to restaurant menus being, at best, a few words written on paper ; and sometimes there's no physical support and the menu is only provided orally by the waiter.
And places that display pictures of the food or, even worse, plastic replicas, tend to turn down my appetite.
It feels gross and unnatural.
I think part of it is because it means two things: either you'll have exactly the same thing in your plate, which mean industrialized food, or it won't match what you've been shown, you've been lied to.
Meanwhile, in restaurants without visual clues, you can only let your imagination go wild and guess what you're going to have.
Once the plate is put in front of you, two surprises awaits you: does it looks like what you imagined and is it good?
At least that's the experience I'm looking for in restaurants.
I was just on a short trip to Japan, and I find the replica food very intriguing. Take the experience with a large grain of salt of course, since it's just a few days worth of sightseeing.
What's particularly interesting, is that the replicas really do look like the actual food. Some replicas are so good, that I would not be able to tell that it is fake even by close inspection. One of the gyoza replica got the doughy body, the crispy bottom, and oily surface that is visually indistinguishable from a real one. Even the touch is somewhat real.
I'm not saying seeing those replicas gives me a better appetite; that's doubtful. I just appreciate the crafts.
The other side of the coin is that the actual food do look like the replica/photos, so it's not a bait-and-switch scheme. The people who prepare the dishes---be it a chef or a worker at a fast food chain---all seem quite accurate. Not that all dishes always look beautiful; but they do look consistent. Your plate of curry over rice might be plain, but it will look exactly the same as the previous order (and also as the photo), even if it is created entirely by hand. It's kinda amazing in its own right.
> Meanwhile, in restaurants without visual clues, you can only let your imagination go wild and guess what you're going to have. Once the plate is put in front of you, two surprises awaits you: does it looks like what you imagined and is it good?
>
> At least that's the experience I'm looking for in restaurants.
Well, you still retain the second part of the surprise: "is it good?". But yeah, it will ruin the first one, because of the accuracy. It's not something that particularly bothers me, but I can understand why you want to avoid the spoilers.
> * as a French person, I'm used to restaurant menus being, at best, a few words written on paper ; and sometimes there's no physical support and the menu is only provided orally by the waiter*
Plenty of restaurants in Japan are omakase in various forms. Sometimes this means high-end sushi. Often, that you sit down and are served the chef's special. (Particularly true in the towns.)
What’s interesting to me is how functional this is, not just decorative. The fake food isn’t about realism for its own sake, but about reducing ambiguity: you instantly understand portion size, ingredients, and even relative price without sharing a language. In a way it feels like a very physical form of UX design, solving a real communication problem long before digital menus or translations were common. I’m curious whether this tradition persists mainly out of nostalgia now, or if restaurants still see measurable benefits from it.
> Japanese people like to say that they “eat with their eyes,” relishing the colors, shapes, and textures of a dish before it ever hits the tongue
That's interesting, because, as a French person, I'm used to restaurant menus being, at best, a few words written on paper ; and sometimes there's no physical support and the menu is only provided orally by the waiter.
And places that display pictures of the food or, even worse, plastic replicas, tend to turn down my appetite. It feels gross and unnatural. I think part of it is because it means two things: either you'll have exactly the same thing in your plate, which mean industrialized food, or it won't match what you've been shown, you've been lied to.
Meanwhile, in restaurants without visual clues, you can only let your imagination go wild and guess what you're going to have. Once the plate is put in front of you, two surprises awaits you: does it looks like what you imagined and is it good?
At least that's the experience I'm looking for in restaurants.
I was just on a short trip to Japan, and I find the replica food very intriguing. Take the experience with a large grain of salt of course, since it's just a few days worth of sightseeing.
What's particularly interesting, is that the replicas really do look like the actual food. Some replicas are so good, that I would not be able to tell that it is fake even by close inspection. One of the gyoza replica got the doughy body, the crispy bottom, and oily surface that is visually indistinguishable from a real one. Even the touch is somewhat real.
I'm not saying seeing those replicas gives me a better appetite; that's doubtful. I just appreciate the crafts.
The other side of the coin is that the actual food do look like the replica/photos, so it's not a bait-and-switch scheme. The people who prepare the dishes---be it a chef or a worker at a fast food chain---all seem quite accurate. Not that all dishes always look beautiful; but they do look consistent. Your plate of curry over rice might be plain, but it will look exactly the same as the previous order (and also as the photo), even if it is created entirely by hand. It's kinda amazing in its own right.
> Meanwhile, in restaurants without visual clues, you can only let your imagination go wild and guess what you're going to have. Once the plate is put in front of you, two surprises awaits you: does it looks like what you imagined and is it good? > > At least that's the experience I'm looking for in restaurants.
Well, you still retain the second part of the surprise: "is it good?". But yeah, it will ruin the first one, because of the accuracy. It's not something that particularly bothers me, but I can understand why you want to avoid the spoilers.
> * as a French person, I'm used to restaurant menus being, at best, a few words written on paper ; and sometimes there's no physical support and the menu is only provided orally by the waiter*
Plenty of restaurants in Japan are omakase in various forms. Sometimes this means high-end sushi. Often, that you sit down and are served the chef's special. (Particularly true in the towns.)
https://archive.ph/RH5Tv