Film: From Art to Craft?

People endlessly debate the definitions of "art" vs. "craft".

For me, the definition of craft suggests that the object being "crafted" has a utilitarian purpose, or something other than a purely aesthetic goal. 

Example:  A hand-crafted pot might be artistic (and many are), but its functional form is pottery.  Ostensibly, it could hold things. 

Conversely, a painting, drawing or sculpture generally has no function beyond the expression of ideas.

Yikes, before all of the artisans and craftspeople throw broken pots at me, there are certainly exceptions to this, but I need a working definition to continue my thought here!

Film has generally been considered "art".  Films are made to entertain, to provoke thought and, certainly to convey the vision of the director, the actors, the writer, the editor, etc.  Like a play, which has no function other than to provide entertainment, film has an aesthetic objective.

Or does it? 

Reading some comments on this site and thinking through personal experiences in the film industry, I now believe that film has become a "craft" -- at least as far as commercial films are concerned.

So, what is the utilitarian purpose of a film?  To sell tickets, of course.  Much like advertising is a vehicle to sell products or services (or ideas), film has become a craft to sell itself.

Initially, film could only be viewed in a theatre, a place that takes its name from the same venue as dramatic productions (and in some cases, used to be where plays were shown).  Filmmakers envisioned audiences sitting in their seats watching their creative vision unfold on a screen of certain dimensions, with a specific range of sound systems.

Now, films are made that are never shown in theatres -- they go directly to the small screen as DVD's.  Certainly, modern filmmakers now at least include the idea of DVD release as they produce their work.

The people who bankroll these tremendous efforts now are merchants, not patrons of the arts.  Can anyone draw parallels between modern studio filmmaking and the system of patrons, art galleries and exhibitions supporting painters?  I can't.

The much-vaunted indy filmmakers continue to be the true artisans of this industry now, but are they fine artists?  What indy filmmaker rejects the offer of a major studio to make commercial films?  So, is the object of the indy filmmaker to become a studio filmmaker?  So, is an indy film really just a craft to sell itself (with payment being a studio contract rather than just receipts)?

There have been several articles on Gather decrying the commercial sponsorship of "Akeelah and the Bee" by Starbucks.  I wonder whether we are criticizing the wrong type of sponsorship.  Yes, it was commercially smart for Starbucks to do what they did, but is that much different that the patronage of fine artists of old?

What if other companies bankrolled films as patrons of the arts and removed the commercial studio system from this process?  Would this not free an independent filmmaker from traditional pressures to be commercially successful vs conveying important ideas?

So long as commercial interests do not intrude on the creative process (and what good patron would do that?), this might put the art back into filmmaking, and let the studios continue to be the mass production assembly lines they are.

Thoughts?