Abstract

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.

摘要

本文试图重新评估数字屏幕的教育能力，而此时它们的教育影响已不可忽视。，但也越来越引起人们的怀疑。为了避免过于苛刻的理论方法的冗余，本文提出了屏幕难以捉摸的技术“可塑性”的主观潜力。介绍之后，解决了一些关于数字屏幕的教学疑虑，然后我们转向玛丽·何塞·蒙扎因（Marie-JoséMondzain）的历史主义哲学家历史研究。为了弄清在政治意义上的“救赎经济”中笼罩着圣像的筛查机构并在严格的经济对等政治中达到高潮的审美政治矛盾，我们同意彼得·曾迪的观点，这种矛盾仍然困扰着圣像的当代继承人。通过在教学上重新阅读Szendy对“经济”的替代性解释，我们随后提出了通过肯定数字屏幕的激进可塑性来超越新自由主义屏幕政治的理由。我们与伊夫·西顿（Yves Citton）一道，在结论中建议，这种批判后的肯定要求采取“经济学”的做法关心与屏幕的动态技术-ful实验。与其抗拒或适应其美学上令人眼花algorithms乱的算法，需要一种教育实践，允许这些算法数量从质量上区分教育者对其的用途。