I think that the nature of 'abstracts' isn't as simple as people think.
In my personal
definition, a true abstract leaves you wondering what you are looking at because it is a pleasing collection of colour and pattern and nothing more recognizable than that.
In the case of the Red Waves, we know that we are looking at Mother Earth. Once we are aware of that, a wish arises to know more precisely what's being shown, and in that case I can't say that Red Waves really, really fits my personal notion of the abstract. So what does, then?http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/foundpaintings2.html
provides a clue to how I see the nature of true abstract work. The lovely shots shown there tick all the boxes. Again, for me.
I suppose that it boils down either to a need for more information in order for a shot to work, or that, in the case of true abstracts, further information will actually detract from the image.