This blog has been created as a response to these ridiculous 'iMatt' commercials that have been circulating through culture for the past few months. The rise in popularity of the iMatt, an utterly useless product, is certainly a sign of the coming apocalypse.
These ads are completely stupid. What does ‘iMatt’ even mean? I don’t see how it is different than the plain old ‘Matt’ character. This whole thing is just a stupid excuse to reference those popular apple commercials.
I think the point of the ads is to explore how we represent ourselves through the medium of the internet. As the user of the computer we are bound by physical limitations. We need to eat, we need to sleep; Our travel and communications are severely limited. The ad shows us that through the use of the internet, we create another body, one that does not suffer those limitations.
Okay…but why then are there two Matt’s? How can you never not be yourself!? Why isn’t there just one Matt who has somehow been able to augment his body using the Internet? Perhaps non-iMatt should be standing on a stool in the commercials or holding a long broomstick that he can use to get at objects that are just out of his reach. Oh! It would be cute if he had on a scuba tank!! It is not clear to me why the two Matt’s should be separate. Are they really two separate entities? Is the iMatt even real? Matt can exist without iMatt, but is the reverse true?
I am amazed by the short sightedness you have displayed, so in response to your post I’ll ask you to watch the video again carefully. When watching this time, pay close attention to the differences between the two Matts. Let’s start with the most obvious differences. While (as you so gracefully put it) non-iMatt is wearing a stark and conservative cardigan, plain brown pants, and a tie, iMatt is dressed in the hip fashions of the day, sporting a stripped “hoodie” and denim jeans. These choices identify iMatt as “cooler” and more laid back and are clearly a reference to the 1987 cult program “Max Headroom” (In the program, the all-digital Max was a energetic, smooth-talking foil to his non-digital counterpart). Superficially the ad seems to be telling us that it is “cooler” to be digital, or to “up” with current trends and technology, but there is more to the story. Look at the relative height of each Matt. While clearly portrayed by the same handsome actor, iMatt is noticeably taller than non-iMatt. This combined with the previous analysis of clothing choice implies that iMatt is a more idealized version of non-iMatt and also that this more idealized version is created by non-iMatt. So your whimsical suggestion that non-iMatt should hold a broom was actually not that far off. The important difference is that iMatt is more than a broom, he serves more than one function. He is a complete digital representation, one that can be mistaken for the thing that he is representing. Whether or not it was intentional, this is a reference to the landmark New Yorker cartoon featuring a dog at a computer remarking to another dog, “On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog.” These ads, like the cartoon, play with the possibility that digital representations can be falsified because they are not tied down to the limits of physical authenticity. While I don’t want to bore you with references to Benjamin, his conception of ‘Aura’, and an article he wrote called ‘Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ (which you’ve probably never heard of because it hasn’t been turned into a reality show on FOX), I will offer one potential criticism of the ad. They are one sided in that they do not fully deal with the limitations of the iMatt. Yes he can travel around the world with the push of a button, but as non-iMatt points out, iMatt cannot feel human touch. His flexibility comes at the expense of authenticity.
Hi guys. I’ve never posted anything before so please go easy on me. I like the previous point, and I totally understand the argument, but I guess I’m most interested in the last the line of the video which suggests a moment of overlap between the Matts. However crude the example the video uses, there seems to be an odd moment of truth when non-iMatt tells iMatt that they look at presumably “adult” web content together. Perhaps (first respondent) was not so wrong to question whether or not these two Matts are truly separate. Such a model is problematic given the previous respondent’s recognition of the fact that iMatt cannot breathe outside the computer (or doesn’t need to breathe at all) and that non-iMatt can not fit through CAT-9 cables, but there appears to be clear points of intersection between the two. Perhaps then, it is more accurate to say that there is communication between the two Matts and that they use this communication to work together.
Further, I think the second video cleverly narrativizes the relationship between the two Matt’s when iMatt leaps into the arms of non-digital Dave who remarks “You don’t feel digital.” This simultaneously references the fact that the handsome actor playing iMatt himself is not weightless, as well as the expectation that an entirely digital entity should be. It shows how the non-digital actor cannot use his physical self to become an iMatt because he is bound by the limitations of the physical world (such as gravity). I feel that there also might be a further level of irony in the fact that since this scene is presented digitally, the actor playing matt is in many ways weightless (that is the viewer cannot experience his physical self). This again references the previous respondent’s observation that authenticity is sacrificed in the name of access.
Fine. These two entities are not the same, but which is better? As you all have shown, these ads imply that it is much “cooler”, and therefore better, to be digital. Call me a Luddite, but I will not be forced to download my emotions into emoticons.
Your last statement is interesting given that you clearly spend a great deal of time online posting on message boards, but perhaps that is something we should address later. Let us address your point. As I said before, the videos do seem to be biased towards the digital. This is evident from the mise-en-scene of all of the videos but especially in the derogatory portrayal of non-digital entities in video #4. Yes this bumbling “Darren” character portrays non-digital entities in an unflattering and borderline offensive manner, but such a portrayal was clearly intended to represent the frustrations and difficulties of non-digital communication. It is important to always return to the point that non-iMatt makes in the first video. iMatt cannot feel human touch, he cannot exist in the physical world, and although non-iMatt is apparently not having any luck with the ladies, he unlike iMatt, may one day touch one.
6 comments:
I think the point of the ads is to explore how we represent ourselves through the medium of the internet. As the user of the computer we are bound by physical limitations. We need to eat, we need to sleep; Our travel and communications are severely limited. The ad shows us that through the use of the internet, we create another body, one that does not suffer those limitations.
Okay…but why then are there two Matt’s? How can you never not be yourself!? Why isn’t there just one Matt who has somehow been able to augment his body using the Internet? Perhaps non-iMatt should be standing on a stool in the commercials or holding a long broomstick that he can use to get at objects that are just out of his reach. Oh! It would be cute if he had on a scuba tank!! It is not clear to me why the two Matt’s should be separate. Are they really two separate entities? Is the iMatt even real? Matt can exist without iMatt, but is the reverse true?
I am amazed by the short sightedness you have displayed, so in response to your post I’ll ask you to watch the video again carefully. When watching this time, pay close attention to the differences between the two Matts. Let’s start with the most obvious differences. While (as you so gracefully put it) non-iMatt is wearing a stark and conservative cardigan, plain brown pants, and a tie, iMatt is dressed in the hip fashions of the day, sporting a stripped “hoodie” and denim jeans. These choices identify iMatt as “cooler” and more laid back and are clearly a reference to the 1987 cult program “Max Headroom” (In the program, the all-digital Max was a energetic, smooth-talking foil to his non-digital counterpart). Superficially the ad seems to be telling us that it is “cooler” to be digital, or to “up” with current trends and technology, but there is more to the story. Look at the relative height of each Matt. While clearly portrayed by the same handsome actor, iMatt is noticeably taller than non-iMatt. This combined with the previous analysis of clothing choice implies that iMatt is a more idealized version of non-iMatt and also that this more idealized version is created by non-iMatt. So your whimsical suggestion that non-iMatt should hold a broom was actually not that far off. The important difference is that iMatt is more than a broom, he serves more than one function. He is a complete digital representation, one that can be mistaken for the thing that he is representing. Whether or not it was intentional, this is a reference to the landmark New Yorker cartoon featuring a dog at a computer remarking to another dog, “On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog.” These ads, like the cartoon, play with the possibility that digital representations can be falsified because they are not tied down to the limits of physical authenticity. While I don’t want to bore you with references to Benjamin, his conception of ‘Aura’, and an article he wrote called ‘Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ (which you’ve probably never heard of because it hasn’t been turned into a reality show on FOX), I will offer one potential criticism of the ad. They are one sided in that they do not fully deal with the limitations of the iMatt. Yes he can travel around the world with the push of a button, but as non-iMatt points out, iMatt cannot feel human touch. His flexibility comes at the expense of authenticity.
Hi guys. I’ve never posted anything before so please go easy on me. I like the previous point, and I totally understand the argument, but I guess I’m most interested in the last the line of the video which suggests a moment of overlap between the Matts. However crude the example the video uses, there seems to be an odd moment of truth when non-iMatt tells iMatt that they look at presumably “adult” web content together. Perhaps (first respondent) was not so wrong to question whether or not these two Matts are truly separate. Such a model is problematic given the previous respondent’s recognition of the fact that iMatt cannot breathe outside the computer (or doesn’t need to breathe at all) and that non-iMatt can not fit through CAT-9 cables, but there appears to be clear points of intersection between the two. Perhaps then, it is more accurate to say that there is communication between the two Matts and that they use this communication to work together.
Further, I think the second video cleverly narrativizes the relationship between the two Matt’s when iMatt leaps into the arms of non-digital Dave who remarks “You don’t feel digital.” This simultaneously references the fact that the handsome actor playing iMatt himself is not weightless, as well as the expectation that an entirely digital entity should be. It shows how the non-digital actor cannot use his physical self to become an iMatt because he is bound by the limitations of the physical world (such as gravity). I feel that there also might be a further level of irony in the fact that since this scene is presented digitally, the actor playing matt is in many ways weightless (that is the viewer cannot experience his physical self). This again references the previous respondent’s observation that authenticity is sacrificed in the name of access.
Fine. These two entities are not the same, but which is better? As you all have shown, these ads imply that it is much “cooler”, and therefore better, to be digital. Call me a Luddite, but I will not be forced to download my emotions into emoticons.
Your last statement is interesting given that you clearly spend a great deal of time online posting on message boards, but perhaps that is something we should address later. Let us address your point. As I said before, the videos do seem to be biased towards the digital. This is evident from the mise-en-scene of all of the videos but especially in the derogatory portrayal of non-digital entities in video #4. Yes this bumbling “Darren” character portrays non-digital entities in an unflattering and borderline offensive manner, but such a portrayal was clearly intended to represent the frustrations and difficulties of non-digital communication. It is important to always return to the point that non-iMatt makes in the first video. iMatt cannot feel human touch, he cannot exist in the physical world, and although non-iMatt is apparently not having any luck with the ladies, he unlike iMatt, may one day touch one.
Post a Comment