Stiegler

“Information only has value as a result of a heirarchization of ‘what happens’: in selecting what merits the name of ‘event’, these industries co-produce, at the very least, access to ‘what happens’ through giving it the status of event. Nothing ‘takes place’ or ‘happens’ except what is ‘covered’. Thousands of (potential) events, at a minimum, happen without happening, take place without taking place, or take place without happening – and thus will not have taken place, will not have happened – but rather will go to their anonymous and improbable destinations.”

                Bernard Stiegler, extract from La Technique et le temps 2. La Desorientation; 1996 (Technics and Time, 2: Disorientation; 2009)

The question I would like to put forward is: what deserves the word ‘event’?

Even our memories of big ‘events,’ that reach national news, fade with time; usually, it’s the documentation of moments that prevents us from forgetting. With this in mind, is it then the process of documenting or “covering” a happening that gives it authority as an ‘event’?

What if, like for Jim Carey’s character in The Truman Show, everything was elevated to the status of ‘event’? The ordinary, everyday routine (albeit under artificial conditions) - all of it covered and broadcast out to an assumed audience. Furthermore, is having an audience also vital in establishing the difference between event and only potential event?