What Makes An Auteur?

This is a subject I've been mulling over a lot recently. The question as to what makes an auteur? Am I an auteur? I really don't know.

My common thought of an auteur is someone who controls every part of the creative aspect of their film. I've often thought that's how films should be made, and I was opposed to anything that would make a creative change to the vision of the auteur's story. But a small change in vision can be welcome, can't it? I used to think no, but now I'm thinking yes.

The auteur line of distinction is so blurry, it's pretty much subjective to any filmgoer, cause I mean, if you truly prescribe by the auteur theory, then technically someone like Michael Bay is an auteur. The more I think about it, the more confused I get. I personally don't think I'm an auteur, I don't have enough of a distinctive style to really be called as such, but I have too much of an individualized opinion to really be a slave to the studios either. I'm trying to find a balance. The two main things my focus is now on as a filmmaker is to try and be more open to suggestion while also developing a more distinctive style.

When I think about it, auteurs are generally pretentious, so I don't wanna be an auteur, I wanna make studio films with legit budgets, but I don't want to be a slave to the studios and just make generic pieces of cinema. I've gotta find my way as a filmmaker. I think a large part of my problem is I try to emulate other directors too much rather than just channeling what is visually fascinating to me to the screen. Then, I've just gotta be more susceptible to change, and learn what is worth fighting for and what's not, cause not all creative decisions are significant enough to get in an all out argument over. I do all that, and I think I'll be fine.