The former is inconvenient - like a book or a tale. It conveys a story, a position, a morale, which inevitably leads to conflict and conflict is bad for business. It also can't be generated from existing stories and positions to cover all audiences, they'll average to the same bland product. It can only be borne out of human instincts and experiences. Even totalitarian propaganda has historically used real feelings and experiences.

While the latter can be generated and pipelined.

So the modern "consumerist" recommendation for art is to never look at the root, never search for the ballad itself, only for tables and food and harps and ambient play and windows and stones and the weather. And even if you look at what's supposed to be the art at the root, it's assumed that the modern way is to only rationalize it, find technical, formal similarities and intersections with something else, like a style or a touch, but never allow it to bloom naturally. Getting at the essence of things is seen as impolite and asocial.

(Reminds me of that quote about white color and wisdom.)

It's literally soulless.