1 Essay Title A response to the decontextualized screen in public and domestic realms. On a close inspection of the seminal text ‘Art and Objecthood’ (1967) 1 in which Michael Fried, art critic and historian rejects the Minimalism movement or rather ‘literalist’ art, readers can find an often overlooked speculation that film somehow manages to escape the degradation of quality that was synonymous with literalist art. Fried elaborates his theory that cinema is the only art which by its very nature escapes theatre: “Because cinema escapes theatre— automatically, as it were—it provides a welcome and absorbing refuge to sensibilities at war with theatre and theatricality” 2 . Fried’s analysis was quickly revoked by artists working in postmodernism as conscious efforts were made to create media which confronted spectators and could be ‘experienced as a kind of object existing … in a specific physical relation’ contrary to Fried’s analysis. In light of this, we can observe how this fragility and threat that the screen, should its condition of non – art be exposed, creates the distinction between media screens in public and private spheres. Working in this condition, artists invited spectators to understand the screen ‘as well as the site and experience of screen spectatorship – as material’. This paper will discuss this preservation of integrity and origin in gallery-situated screens/interfaces in a historical context. Interfaces began to inhabit art gallery spaces in the early 1950s yet it wasn’t until the 1960s that the initially quaint displays of film and video made way for audiovisual displays that 1 Fried, M (1998). Art and Objecthood. 2 Fried, M (1998). Art and Objecthood.