The former images definitely have a more raw, natural appearance to them. Something you'd more easily be able to associate with its natural counterpart. The latter more refined with sharper branching and structure. I think these different designs are simply a matter of aesthetic and preference.
There's something to be appreciated in a cohesive image that while clearly the product of artificial work, strives to appear untouched and natural. I think that contradiction ties together both the appreciation for art and horticulture to the source of its inspiration. Conversely the more refined and arguably more popular form of bonsai appeals to human aesthetics. To build things in given proportions that are easier and more pleasing to the eye. In the human body as well in many forms of art and architecture the "golden ratio" can be found repeatedly and often used as the baseline to build or change something. In doing so you don't necessarily build something contrived, but something different all together.
In short the former seeks to capture the natural aesthetic of nature while the latter aims to realize human aesthetic in nature. I believe both forms of bonsai have its merit and what you prefer largely depends on your preference and personality. I think people shouldn't care so much about what others think looks good. One of the reasons why I enjoy bonsai is that because the development process takes so much time, you are able to realize your preferences. Developing trees are a gratifying experience that can reflect as much as the artist's character as the tree's.