Answers are Easier than Questions

Yesterday I ended the entry by noting that it is easier to come up with a good answer than a good question, and the problem with that for me right now is that a dissertation is nothing more than a good question carried through to a conclusion. That is also, much to the frustration of the Creationists, the basis for science, which is why all the tortured attempts to push God into the science curriculum are doomed to intellectual failure. The basis for any good scientific idea is that it can be proved one way or another, not that it can be appealed to authority. Of course, cognitively most of us are Creationists. We want the answers, not inconvenient questions. If only God could do my doctorate for me...

Which gets me back to my problem. What is my question?

My question will have something to do with the practice of film editing. I see film editing as a social practice that has developed through history using technology. I'm also concerned that the introduction of digital technology was, to use the words of Stephen Jay Gould, something akin to punctuated equilibrium. It was highly disruptive and it severely disturbed the social structure of the editing process. The addition of data networks filled a somewhat suturing role, allowing the return of the assistant and the apprentice and adding potential for the inclusion of the sound editor, the special effects department and the musician. This idea of suture is pretty critical to me as it also brings into play the idea of social formation and education. How do you learn to be an editor? How do you become part of that community?

This also raises the question of what exactly is a film? I'd propose that it is the reification of the practice of filmmaking, where the editor plays a critical role.

More later.