I’m still feeling, however, that (in regard to the studio environment) using the term ‘art director’ implies more than just designing and concepting. By your proposal an intern or junior designer who does a set of boards also art directed them. Why aren’t all these people paid the same? It’s not just a matter of experience but of job parameters. I think there is a level of team management that is implied in ‘art director’ that isn’t necessarily in ‘designer’. Often, in the way that studios shift ‘art-directors’ to ‘directors’ for the sake of prestige, it seems ‘designers’ shift themselves to ‘art-directors’. Though I’m picking up what you’re putting down- I think there is a valid point in this idea….again, we’re goin further with this than necessary( but I guess that’s what semantics is all about- oh well).

Thanks again for the post.

The one that works at an advertising agency, and is usually partnered with a copywriter, these two come up with ad campaigns.

The other art director is the type found on film/commercial productions who is responsible for the look of the set or location and wardrobe. Similar to a production designer.

Another variation is the art director who works at a magazine, who is responsible for the look and feel of the magazine as a whole and oversee’s the team of photo editors, illustrators and designers.

Than there is the term applied to motion graphics, which now is being replaced with the title of “director’. Many motion graphic studios have started to follow the commercial film production model of naming their main art directors/designers as simply directors. It sounds more prestigious, even if all the “directors” are really designers, who hire freelance designers to make them look good.

I think if you come up with look and feel and most importantly the concept of a storyboard pitch, you can credit yourself as art director, because you supplied the client and the motion design studio that hired you, with a creative/artistic DIRECTION.

Everything after that is execution/production. Meaning pixel pushing (90% of time) and massaging the client during the process.

As for wasting time…yes, the issue has been exhausted.
As for your art director police joke…yes, it was funny.

As far as- “Claiming the artist did ‘art direction’ versus crediting himself as the ‘art director’” Doing “art direction” is art direction and in a motion studio there is typically one or two people per project/pitch that are responsible for this. Yes, as a designer you make your own decisions on your own direction- but in the studio environment that’s called ‘designing’ not ‘art directing’. All I’m saying is that designing one sweet pitch direction(though a completely admirable thing in it of itself) is different from overseeing a team of people while doing the same; there is more juggling involved and it can (often does) effect the quality of that particular ad’s own designs should he/she have enough time to make some. I think those people should be credited for that- discriminately.

Long story short, maybe people should be a little more sparing in their use of the term…and I’m sorry to bring so much attention to this most likely undeserving case- i mean this only as a response to a growing number of sites.

The Doctor is speaking in terms of what technically a creative directors job is, seems to be some confusion about this. “Individually, the art director is mostly responsible for the visual look and feel of the creative product.” Claiming the artist did “art direction” versus crediting himself as the “art director” are very different indeed. The rolls of artists within studios can be quite vague it seems to be a waste of time to address this as a serious issue.

Personal portfolios represent the talent of the artist whatever the description of the role is the work should speak for it’s self.