Do you think non-commissioned street paintings are art or vandalism?

Some of these paintings are brilliant!
They are done by very talented artists, however, and it is a big however, I do not agree that anyone can just deface a wall/building without permission, so I would therefore consider it vandalism even though some are so good.
Some are atrocious, and need to be cleaned off, and this is possibly an ongoing problem for councils as it is so expensive to remove this sort of thing.

by Finy

Art is Art.

No it's not vandalism, it's expression of that person.

(of course not rude words)....

by jonaja

If they haven't got permission, then no matter how beautiful it might be, I still think it is vandalism, because the public or government may not want it there, and that person hasn't got the right to paint on something that doesn't belong to them.

by Bryony Harrison

I think 'tagging' is pointless graffiti, but the artwork brightens up an otherwise dull city scape. Imagine a city with no graffiti, I would feel cheated.

by May Hyde

I don't know. I think they do some amazing work. It depends what they produce. However I think it is art.

by chipp

It would depend on if it was private property or not and if it was whether the property owner was ok with it. It would still be vandalism if the owner didn't like it, but in a colourful area where street art is the norm it would be considered art.

by Sarah Bell

Sometimes it both. There are many artists that are so creative and brilliant, attracting much fascination. There are others however whose work is less than inspiring and present more of an eye sore.

by dwatk

Art or graffiti, some I have seen look artistic.
However get permission do not presume it is OK to treat somebody's property as a blackboard.
Farley

by farle