Hi James. Do you think it's not? You may be right, but I'd like to know why you think so.
I'm just teasing. I would happily place it in the "abstract" category as it's used as applied to photography in general. I'm not sure I'd consider it (or a lot of other work labelled as such) as "abstract" in the historical artistic sense of abstraction.
Speaking personally, I generally think of abstraction as an extreme representational or interpretive form, or something that deals only in color and structure without any actual realistic representation at all.
But, since photography is so representational of realism by default, I think we've relaxed the definition a bit.
That's my 2 cents, and it's worth every penny of that