Relatively elusive object, both for the city dweller and for the manager of the urban, the city exceeds the representations that one can have. The dilemma, for the public authorities, is the same from one city to another: must we intervene by producing an aesthetic by the implantation of the works, by the architectural creation, or must we draw from the urban fabric him its potentialities and implement them? How to work the internal coherence of a city, the one that is "already there"? The contemporary development of urban aesthetics seems to confirm how much art in the city must have a social function. It is the public authorities that provide an "institutional framework" for projects as well as for works that are created and that configure their modes of legitimization. Why is art destined to transform the city and social life in the city? This belief would be the fruit of a current will of the public authorities which thus demonstrate their will to create an aesthetic of the social bond. The recognition of this citizen art compels all artistic practices to enter this landscape of political and social legalization of their implementation. To what extent would the "myth of artistic creation" not have become the very engine of the construction of the social bond in the urban space?