About Wilderness Nation: Disliking it and making it disappear are two different things

Seeing the news that Wilderness Nation had some controversial sculptures removed due to complaints, and then announced it would continue creating by incorporating public opinions, I couldn't help but feel a bit unsettled. I visited there last year. Each small car and house built from discarded items, and the structures inside, often amazed me with the artist's wild imagination. When I left, I was happy about their plan to expand the park, but I never expected to hear such news now. Paying for admission is itself a kind of contract; it is a niche attraction with clear pricing and a unique style. Since visitors buy tickets to enter, they have implicitly accepted this non-mainstream aesthetic experience. A healthy society should not accommodate only one kind of beauty recognized by the majority. Spaces like Wilderness Nation are "spiritual sanctuaries" reserved for specific groups. They provide an outlet for those craving unique experiences to temporarily escape standardized life. The function of art is not solely to soothe the soul; sometimes its value lies precisely in challenging and questioning, provoking our thoughts. We may dislike a work, but making it disappear outright is tantamount to ending the conversation and depriving others of the chance to encounter it. Niche creations are often fragile in the face of public opinion. Over time, this will make creators more inclined to choose "safe" expressions, ultimately harming the freedom of the entire cultural ecosystem. Protecting the niche does not mean everyone must appreciate it, but defending a possibility that can coexist. If you don't like it, you can choose not to go, but please don't easily use complaints to erase a world that is profoundly meaningful to others. When all the "different" are trimmed away, The world will eventually be left with only a tidy wasteland. -