This paper attempts to reassess the educational affordances of digital screens, at a time when their educational impact has become "incontournable," but is also increasingly growing suspicion. To bypass the redundancies of overly critical theoretical approaches, the paper foregrounds the subjectifying potentialities of the screen's elusive technological 'plasticity'. After the introduction, in which some pedagogical misgivings about the digital screen are addressed, we turn to Marie-José Mondzain's historico-philosophical genealogy of iconoclasm. Trying to make sense of the aesthetic-political ambivalence that shrouded the icon's screenic agency within a Christian 'economy of salvation', and which climaxed in a politics of strictly economic equivalency, we concur with Peter Szendy that this ambivalence still haunts the icon's contemporary heirs. By pedagogically re-reading Szendy's alternative account of 'iconomy' we are subsequently led to make a case for exceeding neoliberal screening politics through an affirmation of the digital screen's radical plasticity. Along with Yves Citton, we suggest, in our conclusion, that this post-critical affirmation calls for an 'iconomical' practice of "care"-ful experiments with the screen's dynamic technologies. Instead of combating or adapting to its aesthetically dazzling algorithms, educational practices are required that allow these algorithmic quantities to qualitatively "differentiate" the uses that educands make of them.