"Art Director" versus "copywriter"

August 31, 2011

“Art Director” is a great title. It’s so much better than “copywriter.” It’s as if a copywriter came up with the title for an art director and an art director wrote down “copywriter” as a placeholder. I hope the copywriter who came up with the name “copywriter” lost his job as a copywriter.

Hmm…you both present an interesting case, but I’m going to have to side with the guy who directs individual expression according to the aesthetic principles of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance instead of listening to you, the word writer.

And isn’t “copywriter” a bit repetitive? “Copy,” by definition, is “written matter intended to be reproduced in printed form.” So a copywriter is a writer of things that are written with the intent to be printed. What professional writer (besides “writers” who don’t actually write) isn’t writing with the intent to be reproduced?

Not to mention the fact that this definition makes copywriters sound so shallow when we stand next to someone who’s directing that which is beautiful.

If art directors are art directors, then copywriters should be referred to as “literature conductors.” I know not all copy is literature, but let’s get serious, not every image is a piece of art. “Art director” also has a natural progression to creative director. Creative directors direct creativity, which creates art, which art directors direct. Meanwhile, copywriters are slumped over a Xerox machine reproducing all those words they want everyone to see.

Unfortunately, however, it would be impossible to rename copywriters. There’s just no way that many writers could agree on one phrase.

7:31am | URL: http://tmblr.co/Z6pp4y8zppbi

(Notes: 27)