Street art has the rhythm that it is provocative, dishonest, blasphemous, heretic and illegal naturally, at the same time as destroying public property and causing vandalism in communal spaces. But this is not literally that when we are referring to the art that we usually see on the streets of any city in the world. Graffiti was first used by gangs and street coils to mark their zones of influence in urban environments and as we know the villains do not care about the artistic integrity of the marks they leave on the walls.

The years have passed, of course, and the first graffiti style has progressively developed aesthetic endearment, being a rich in expressive and dynamic means, at the same time as it is here to convey social concerns and a political message. A good art, by definition!Or again, if we believe at least the street art fighters, from municipal councils and homeowners, who swear that nothing creative is vandalism, equalizing street art with the very destructive fury of a youth section.

What if the institution of art has already accepted graffiti as a child by hosting it in museums and galleries? What tons of ink have spilled by art critics and social analysts trying to explain that the illegal is synonymous with this ephemeral art? Whatever famous contemporary artists of the modern era have sprung from the graffiti area and often return-dense there? Anyone who does not like this form of art hastens to upset it, as if everyone's aesthetics are the measure of everything.

If the graffiti were fine, aesthetically pleasing, that is, transforming dull walls of slums, and then made them into trendy mark places, losing the illegitimate and foolish nature, would it be art? If they even communicated with moral, political and social comments from above, then it would be hard to describe it as vandalism, since the act of destruction itself would have been circumvented.

Not sure that graffiti needs them all, as it really works in the gap between conservative morals and absolute liberation. This form of expression would not have the same resonance if they missed that sense of cunning and vandalism that is inherent in his existence. If it did not make you contradict yourself, it would not really be worth painting with spray on walls.

And so many countries, central governments and municipalities continue to be embarrassed about how graffiti is to be welcomed. In the US, for example, the law is very strict; at the same time as the Bogota authorities welcome street artists to leave their mark on the city. As for the notorious British scene of street art, it began about 45 years ago, in the wake of May 1968 when London was filled with angry political statements with poetic mood, as the graffiti were young poets, writers, theatrical writers, political activists, and echoing the ideas of Guy Debob's Facts. In Indonesia a traveler can come out of one of the luxury hotel Jakarta has in huge numbers and be amazed by the beauty of the street art all over the walls of the city.

One thing is for sure, that street art can be expressed in a way that cannot be considered as vandalism but keep all the sense of making something out of boarders. It shouldn’t be considered as illegal but with respect for the artist and his world. Both of the two sides need to respect each other’s needs and if they do, then a colorful result will come up and the cities will no longer be grey and sad but filled with bright colors. This is happiness. A board full of colors.