Twitter+art=?

More on this from Marcus Westbury's column in The Age, and from the 2AMt blog.

No matter how dim the screen, I am distracted, I am taken away from the production by someone who has nothing to do with the production. I don't want this.

What a compelling conversation!
Awesome points of view here and I think all people both in and out of the twitter-verse should consider these. The idea of a tweetseat is a great one and has the potential to inetgrate ethical twitter usage into an environment in which the use of mobile phones and other personal electronic devices are not yet accepted.

I also agree that it would be negligent of us to actively disengage with twitter and the like purely for the idea of preserving our theatre-arts-going culture. Things change and we should embrace this and there is GREAT potential for new strands of thought and art through new technological mediums. However, the introduction of technologies such as twitter into the theatre I think brings into question the role of the audience member and also the fundamental reasons for which we attend art. Granted, this is subjective but still worth considering...

Does in-theatre-tweeting have the potential to force a barrier between the patron and the art? Can one go into (say) a theatre with the intention of tweeting about a piece of art, rather than to see the art for what it is? If so, does this have the potential to stain the art (for the good or the bad) accordingly? Should in-theatre-tweeters be regarded as reviewers rather than audience members? How would it be if, following a punch-line of a joke or a touching scene 90% audience collectively whipped out their devices to tweet?

Generally, when we tweet, who do we do it for? The artists, our followers, or ourselves?

Does twitter feed an addiction of self-gratification through the use of other people? Does incessant tweeting have the potential to dictate the amount or weight a 'good experience' has on us based on whether we can tweet it at the time, and/or how many responses/retweets it achieves? Is this treating others as a means to an end, and not an end in themselves?

Just some words for thought!

It's not that engagement and conversation are a bad thing, or that you are disrespecting the actors. As so well pointed out, twittering about a performance can encourage others to attend, create hype and a whole range of other wonderful benefits. Bravo for all of those.
But, as a theatre goer and recent twitter convert, I must say that nothing annoys me more than people using their phone during a performance. The actors may not be able to see it, but what about respect for fellow audience members? The illuminated phone in the seat next to you is distracting at best, infuriating at worst. I must ask - if we are so keen to engage and develop the performace experience, to integrate the traditional theatre experience with modern use of technology and social interaction, which is no bad thing and should be encouraged - why on earth can't we do it during the interval?

some follow up twitter conversations (because some of us actually have quite rich conversations on Twitter, y'see) have been using the hashtag #tweetseats. I only picked up on this a bit later so haven't been dedicated in using it myself (because, y'see, some of us are still fluffing our way through this stuff even if we have been playing with it for a long time).
To summarise:
* the 'tweeter's reserve' (a seating area for those who want to tweet so they won't disturb others) is considered a good idea. As is the telepathic tweet (but we're not quite ready to go to market on that one yet).
* Bell Shakespeare has set up a Twitter poll (oh, the irony): Which do you find more annoying in a theatre? a) Tweeting B) Coughing. (Careful, clicking on either link counts as an automatic vote!).

Thanks for your comment Melanie.
I have to say that I disagree that the desire to tweet means you're not fully engaged with a show. I do agree that if you pull out your phone to check messages or play Snake then yeah, sure, you've succumbed to bad behaviour (and I'm not encouraging that!). I appreciate I'm not your average audience, I've been using digital tools creatively for 14 years now. When I'm in a conference, performance, etc, I might take my phone out to grab a shot, jot down a great quote, take some kind of snapshot from that moment before I forget it forever. If I wait until I'm in the foyer in the interval, that moment will have gone.
But I do appreciate (from years of running workshops and presenting at conferences) facing a room of bright shiny eyes looking back at you has always meant "I'm here, I'm engaged, you are my only focus of attention". Now, looking out to a room of backlit monitors, or faces illuminated by mobile screens, it's admittedly hard to know for sure if they're listening to you, following links or threads in your talk, or simply reading the latest Gaga gossip.
I guess what this boils down to is:
1. Educating 'makers' (for want of a better word) in the benefits of different technologies, exploring what they could mean to your art form and your audiences' engagement (see Geek in Residence program, for a good way to initiate cultural change at a hands-on accessible level). Make sure the 'why' and 'how' is clear, and build in measures to capture that engagement so you're really making the most of that use.
2. Educating audiences in this new etiquette, so that they understand when, how and why they are invited to engage, what the 'rules' are (if there are any) and what 'reward' they might receive from engaging. If you're not sure, ask your audience, they're really quite good at it, you know...
Providing back row seating for tweeters is a fab idea! Surely with this type of hybrid approach, we can accommodate both views, rather than staunchly declare the new one is wrong and should be stamped out forthwith.

While I can see the pros and cons from both camps, I tend to side with the naysayers on the issue of tweeting during a performance (as opposed to during the intermission or immediately afterwards), for two main reasons which come from my kinda selfish perspective as an audience member:

If you're thinking about sharing your positive experience of a performance with friends, and pulling out your phone to compose a tweet, you're no longer fully engaged with that performance. Rather than allowing yourself to be fully immersed in the performance, opening yourself up to multiple impressions and layers of meaning and effect, you're already framing your own response to something that you haven't yet fully encountered. To me, this seems like diluting or depriving yourself of the full experience.

I really doubt that all Twitter users are as conscientious as Hannah and Fee and remember to dim their screens, or even request to sit in the back row where they won't disturb as many people. Less considerate Twitter users pose the risk of disrupting or completely destroying the experience of patrons like me who prefer to engage with a performance without distraction.

I regularly use Twitter and Facebook as a way of sharing my 'Oh my god, you must see this!' moments, but I save it for the foyer or the bar afterwards. In large part out of respect for the people onstage, but (as I've said, kinda selfishly) mostly because I don't want to distract myself from the experience I've paid money for.