Not only are there commissioned street art works, legal street walls in London, Auckland etc., but the origin and everyday meaning of vandalize is "to destroy culture and/or something beautiful" ("vandalize"). If this is the definition that Riggle uses, which he does not specify, but which he should use otherwise the word would lose meaning, then will we really call street art vandalism? Many would say that it actually does the opposite and adds culture and beauty to the streets, but again this is all personal interpretation. He counters this by distinguishing between "mere graffiti" and "artistic graffiti", but if his conditions are to carry extra weight this should be further clarified in the fourth point. It seems that Riggle's theory on street art is particularly strong, however there are small flaws that seem to arise from overlooking specific details. If Riggle wanted to further convince his audience of how these conditions can define “all street art and exclude everything that is not” then he should further specify what he means by ephemeral, vandalism, antithetical and meaning. Otherwise the counterexamples provided such as Mona Lisa, Swoon and Banksy could be considered exceptions to the conditions he imposed