People are usually against things that they have not yet taken the time to understand.

A group of disenfranchised boys rode a train to the nearest DIY store with one thing on their minds, to ‘rack’ as many cans of spray paint as possible. They did not seem to care as they walked passed the cashiers, rattling the ball bearings inside of the Crome’s and Jet-Black’s. On their way back to the station they popped the lids of the cans, pressed on the nuzzles and started to bomb on every clear space that they could find.

These kids were part of a crew who called themselves ‘bombing fanatics’ (BFS) and tagging was their main form of expression, a way of stating to the world that they existed, that they had a presence. They would walk on the railway tracks and spray their tags on the walls, electricity boxes and sign posts. They would hurt the streets by bombing every fixture and wall along their way. They would kill bus windows with their Pentel’s, ensuring that the ink dripped to add more effect.

A dub would be outlined using crome paint to form the letters. Then an array of colours would be used to provide shading and patterns to the piece. Next the lines would become more defined with an extra coat and finally the shadow would be sprayed on to provide the finishing touch. These kids viewed their art form as part of the streets and solely for the streets. In cities around the world, kids like them would be bombing, dubbing, graffing, tagging and causing aggravation to the council and transport police.

So why would the Tate Modern, an institution within the British art scene provide a space for street art to grace it’s walls and allow the discussion of Street Art to take place inside of its museum? Is Tate legitimising street art? Can we even call it street art anymore? Is this the ultimate endorsement or should street art stay on the streets?

Through this subjective account, the main arguments will access the validity of whether street (as a term to classify free expression) can ever really be let inside. For me artistic expressions that are conducted in the streets should be allowed to remain free from the style guidelines and preconceived distinctions of the private art world, including public museums. The whole idea of a creative person actually thinking for themselves, using spaces that are publically owned to produce imagery that makes people react, should be defended at all costs. As for it being a crime, breaking the law is relational, in the sense that even councils have come around to the idea of allowing young people to have spaces on estates and in parks to generate lasting works of street graffiti that does not get destroyed, funny that.

Street art is making cities exciting again. Take a walk in any town to take in the talented youth expressionism, actually try to read the messages, as at least we have people who are willing to say something, not just conform to the norm. The best place to experience street art is in the street; it has helped to beautify ugly bland sterile places and totally changed the way that people view the experience of a city. Why should we not praise people who are extremely dedicated, take the time to find the perfect location, have the vision to surprise, delight with witty word play and at all times remain personal.

Banksy is a name that has become attached to street art, at first the idea of an art graduate doing street art repulsed my authentic nature. That was until I walked through the tunnel underneath Waterloo station and experienced a created space that was defiantly street. The pieces dealt with issues like globalisation, capitalism, racism, knife crime, otherness and every other contemporary issue that one could think of. Never before have real issues been dealt with so effectively through an art exhibition that has caught my attention. The artists from yesterday used to describe the times but in today’s contemporary art world, we have become dazzled with diamond encrusted skulls, heart sculptures and people running around. Banksy has made art much more accessible, there was no entry fee, and the only hindrance was the amount of people who were queuing to enter the tunnel as well. Did I just say that, people actually waiting for an hour to enter an art exhibition? A sign challenged people to ‘gentrify this’, the irony is that the only thing that probably could kill of street art is gentrification.

Street art needs to stay on the street to allow everyone the chance to appreciate its value. If we allow street art to enter the market, it will lose its grittiness and become less authentic while acquiring the status of established art. Rich people who buy art, by into the myth of street culture rather then truly appreciating street culture in its entirety. Street art should not become confined into closed private museums and we (as people) need to protect the notion of free expressionism without curbing the talent of our youth.

What we think is street art has already been mediated by mass culture and the media.