Amateur Versus Professional Feb 4

After reading "Amateur versus Professional" by Maya Deren, I wondered one thing: who's the good guy and who's the bad? There seems to have always been animosity from both experimental/independent/amateur filmmakers and the Hollywood filmmakers. But are amateur filmmakers better than the filmmakers in Hollywood? Are we somehow morally correct because our works are free from corporate money? Was there an unanimous decision that once you created a film that raised a huge profit you were considered an evil in the independent filmmaker's eye?

Deren states that "Artistic freedom means that the amateur film-maker is never forced to sacrifice visual drama and beauty to a stream of words...to the relentless activity and explanations of a plot or to the display of a star or a sponsor's product....". So, what we're saying here is that if you have endorsements you aren't creating art anymore; you're creating a paycheck. However, I disagree. Just because you have the money to create what you want doesn't mean that you're a sell-out. It doesn't mean that you're less than those who don't have the funds, and that have to work with what they do have. It just means you have money.
Some of the arguably greatest movies of all time weren't independent-made; do we disregard those as not being true works of art? And that goes for Hollywood as well: just because it's not made with a million dollar budget doesn't mean that it isn't good enough to tell a story. There is a general stereotype for both types (independent and commercial) that is relatively pointless--a film is a film. Whether it was made by Steven Spielberg or Joey Hash from down the street. The more people that learn that the better off we'll be.