O.Noir is pointless. Add the Opaque restaurants on the west coast and the Dark Dining Project at Camaje in the West Village to the list of restaurant fads as well. Except for their policy of hiring visually-impaired staff, I really see no benefit to a restaurant in which you cannot see your food.
I understand the need for 'difference' in matters of stimulation and appreciation. What I mean is that it is common to believe that to being presented with objects that are set against a background that frames or focuses our attention by way of contrast or heightening the demand of certain senses over others facilitates our focus on a specific object. We are able distinguish it from our surroundings and then evaluate without distraction. A painting is set in a frame and hung on a wall that is not visually busy, in a gallery that allows contemplation and focus. Or, a symphony requires relative silence so that it can be heard at all, however nearly absolute silence offers an opportunity to better enjoy and judge the music without distraction. These cases function on the logic that diminishing the demand on senses that are not primary to experiencing the piece at hand, and focusing the demand of those which are, allows us to use those senses that are required in a greater capacity. Many people claim that their listening experience is enhanced by closing their eyes or being in a dark, quiet and still, essentially non-distracting venue. This all reminds me of the old 'go blind and your hearing will become superhuman' claim that I am sure has some validity to it.
Like food, music's impact can be both enhanced or reduced by visual elements. and visual arts can be enhanced by things like music and setting in general (why does it always have to be a cold, quiet galliery?) Unlike food however, music is not essentially visual, nor or visual pieces essentially auditory. To continue the music-food analogy, a silent setting to music is not the same as a dark restaurant to food. Sometimes music is better in the dark, and sometimes your food may be visually distracting. In the latter, this would be unfortunate cases of style over substance. It does not taste nearly as nice as it looks or costs, which is a feeling that I am sure many people harbor toward fine dining. On the other hand, I like to think that in most cases visual enticement works to further excite our mind, stomach and mouths. To limit your senses seems like sacrilege to me. We salivate on sight, are primed by delightful settings, and without these cues we are missing integral parts of the dining experience.
Just watch this video and try to tell me this seems both enjoyable and worth the extra money for the 'experience'. They say it is all about texture and smells, but I just don't (won't?) buy it. Should food not always be about such things? If you cannot appreciate your food for its texture, taste and smell without a blindfold then maybe you have not been actually appreciating food. This Dana Salisbury person just seems full of gimmicky bullshit. (The girl who does a Stevie Wonder impression 16 seconds in is hilarious, but definitely not right.)
I suppose the dining experience cannot be essentialized though. Perhaps our other senses - olfactory, auditory and sensing temperature - will compensate and allow us to enjoy our food just as much at O.Noir (I won't go so far as to say 'more at O.Noir', but it is certainly a different enjoyment). After all, studies in the past have shown no increase in salivation upon seeing pictures of food. But their method is flawed and the studies are old (ranging from the 1920's to mid-1970's) - unless I am starving, sterile pictures of food are not going to do much for me, especially since they are so prevalent and how easily we become habituated. If you were to isolate a plate of food from me however - cut off the smell, taste and temperature by way of a Plexiglas box, I guarantee it will make me salivate. Personally, I just want to see my food. It helps with textural perception (Rosenthal, Andrew. Food texture: measurement and perception (1999). pp. 3-5), prepares our mouth and stomach, and provides visual pleasure (as well as a dining experience that is not characterized by confusion).
I don't want to present just one side of the story though. O.Noir owner Moa Alameddine and his employees sum up the dining experience well in the following article, ("Dining in the dark: Concept restaurant offers feast for senses - except sight") and video, providing us with a history of the dark dining concept that makes these restaurants seems more legitimate in my opinion:
Finally, if you are interested in more dark dining, a comprehensive list of other "eating in the dark" restaurants can be found here:
"The World's Dark Restaurants"
