Each day when I leave my home, I have to pass by the elementary school that I had attended in suburban Maple. At the front of the school staff parking lot, adjacent to the sidewalk and an important neighbourhood thoroughfare, sits a garbage dumpster featuring a piece of prominently spray-painted graffiti. The dumpster that's in full public view has a graffiti drawing of a penis. This is not a phallic symbol, but rather an obviously crude artistic attempt to depict male genitalia. It is not known if the graffiti was drawn on the dumpster while is sat on school property, or if it was done elsewhere then transported to its current space. But i have observed the dumpster on school property for more than a year, so it is safe to say that it has become a part of my neighbourhood space.

The fact that the drawing of a penis sits prominently in a public space, a school yard, and is passed by children of all ages and those who accompany them on their way to school, delivers the potential that it might have an impact on this space. But, according to my observations, the dumpster penis has had little or no impact on this space. It has no affected the safety or gendering of the space, and has not contributed to the spread of additional graffiti adjoining private or public spaces. This graffiti certainly cannot be esteemed for any artistic value, but I cannot see it as being serious enough to label it as an ac t of vandalism or crime. Still, in my opinion this graffiti has to go.

Mitchell talks of public space as uncontrolled space, a space in which civilization is exceptionally fragile. (p. 192) Whenever the dumpster penis was drawn was probably uncontrolled space and the graffiti had to have been done under the cover of night or in a secluded area. While it is now clearly on display in public space, it is not a threat to this space. I was sure of this when I spent three sessions observing children and family members at various hours passing the dumpster on their way to and from school. While, as mentioned, it is on display, I saw no reaction from anyone to the graffiti, no pointing, no laughing, no expression of delight or disgust. It was just there. Such a lack of visible reaction also negates any sense of the space being gendered by the display of male penis graffiti. In all honesty, no one seemed to care that it was there.

It has been suggested in arguments about graffiti as are or vandalism, and as art or crime, that there is a dualism, and that graffiti might be considered a little of both. (p. 130) McAuliffe and Iveson argue that graffiti can potentially have aesthetic qualities and, as art, has produced famous artists whose works can be viewed in art galleries. (p.132) I have witnessed aesthetically pleasing and highly artistic "illegal" graffiti in Rome, New York and downtown Toronto. These works have added aesthetic value to the space in which they were created. The Maple garbage bin graffiti, to me, has no artistic value whatsoever. This is not graffiti, as art, as you see in the photo. But to me it is not graffiti as a crime or vandalism either. The illegal aspect of graffiti depicts it as a transgressive invasion into the normative patterns of urban living. (p. 131) But the school yard penis does not appear to really  have invaded any public space and affected the citizens of that space in any way.

It can be argued that any sense of criminality would have to be related to the intent of the graffiti. Was the drawing an expression to represent a group movement to a larger public to create space for representation? (p. 195) It would difficult to assert that the penis graffiti artist is a part of a movement seeking illegal representation. It can also be dismissed that this graffiti takes on the notation of what is termed "private" communication. (p. 133) This is the idea that graffiti writers communicate with each other by unlawfully using public spaces to share their common interests. It is hard to determine what communication was to be expressed and potentially shared by the Maple graffiti artist. There seems to be no hidden message or agenda. It could be the works of a pubescent male or female showing some fixation on specific male anatomy. It could have been drawn by someone trying to get a laugh by decorating the dumpster.

For some who view graffiti as crime, the "broken window" theory that allows graffiti to go unpunished creates a threat to the order of a space. (p. 130) It asserts that if a window in a building is broken and not repaired, the rest of the windows will soon be broken. The analogy drawn is that if graffiti is left unchecked, it will spread and have a negative effect on adjoining spaces. (p. 131) My examination of both public and private space around the penis graffiti revealed no "broken window" effect. There was no other graffiti to be found anywhere in the areas. This drawing appears to have survived on its own for more than a year without influencing the spread of further drawings.

The penis graffiti, as observed, has had little or no impact on the space it occupies. The lack of any reaction by the hundreds of children and family members who pass it every day, as ell as its presence in the space for over a year, attest to this. The drawing does not fit into any sense of the duality suggested by McAuliffe and Iveson. (p. 129) To me it is neither art nor crime, it has no aesthetic value and has not endangered or harmed the space. There is no apparent statement of communication to be taken from the drawing. I view it as being truly nothing. But, I believe it has to go. While it is innocuous, i see it as an eyesore, without a purpose. The fact that it sits in an elementary school space makes it something that should be removed. But the same can be said for the dumpster sitting so close to the sidewalk. It is removal time for both.