You might think that you are an art director but it is most likely not the case. Granted, the title carries weight and offers an appealing level of service superior to that of a simple graphic designer but it is not a profession to which you automatically graduate to after an amount of time spent working in the field. The misconception comes from a mistaken sense of authority/autonomy generally found among freelance artists (it has been my path for the last decade) and the general misuse of the title impedes the profession itself (i.e.: mine, on occasion).
Sending specific instructions to a printer does not make you an art director. Establishing a set of colors and ethical rules to a client's visual identity does not make you an art director. Any coordination and/or marketing strategies that are provided as opinions or experienced advice does not make you an art director. Making executive decisions on behalf of your client does not make you an art director.
These are implicit tasks that are not only required but expected by your client/contract and unless you control the financial aspects of the situations above, teams to execute them and the rights to the sanctioned work -- you are not an art director. It might not be mentioned in the job description, but it is expected that a bus driver, for instance, should be able to gas up his transport and perhaps even find alternate routes to his trajectory if any of these situations are to occur -- but these do not make the bus driver a traffic manager.
This isn't meant to be in detriment to designers but a certain clarification is necessary especially in Montreal where the title is confounded by several linguistic definitions (Art Director, Directeur Artistique, Directeur Graphique, Design Director, Directeur de Création, Chargé de projet, Gratifika etc.) but I'll leave that part up to you.
If you ARE an art director, then by all means, carry on and good luck with your gray hairs and advanced aging. Good times,
