The phrase invisible editing gets repeated so often it has become a reflex answer rather than a real principle.
Where the idea comes from
Walter Murch described the ideal cut as one the audience does not consciously register. That observation, from his book on editing, got flattened into a rule that cuts should always be invisible. The original argument was more nuanced and specific to continuity drama.
Editors who cut against it deliberately
Thelma Schoonmaker cutting for Martin Scorsese. Dede Allen on Bonnie and Clyde. Pietro Scalia on JFK. These are not editors hiding their work. Jump cuts, hard cuts mid-sentence, abrupt rhythm shifts - these choices are visible and they are intentional.
What invisible really describes
A cut that does not pull the viewer out of emotional engagement is the more accurate version of the idea. That is not the same as a cut nobody notices. Audiences notice Schoonmaker cuts constantly. They stay emotionally present anyway. The editing is working precisely because it is felt.
Invisible editing is a useful default. It is not a definition of quality.
Editors working on music videos, documentaries, and experimental film often have no use for this principle at all.