Jim Holler raises the tired assertion that Spielberg is not an artist
but merely a "talented entertainer" who simply gives the public "what
it wants."  This begs all sorts of questions:  what is "entertainment"?
What does the public "want"?  Which public?  When?  The same charges
that have been leveled at Spielberg for decades could apply as well
to Charlie Chaplin, John Ford, or Alfred Hitchcock.  How can anyone
persist in denying that a filmmaker capable of creating such a series
of great films in so many disparate genres--Duel, Sugarland Express,
Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Empire of the Sun,
and Schindler's List--is not an artist?  Is "art" only those works
that appeal to a small, elite audience?  Does widespread popularity
mean that the work cannot be art?  When were these definitions agreed