I'd still say that neither of the two images you have posted are abstract Re, because it is obvious what they are. They are representational, impressionistic, IMHO, so not abstract.
Pollock, Rothko, Mondrian, Frankethaler, Malevich etc etc are abstract artists - purely colours and form, not representational.
I've stated my point of view, I can see everyone else disagrees, so we shall have to agree to differ.
Abstract images are those that group shapes and colours together. Because you know what they were doesn't mean that they are not abstract images. As man is born with the ability to see patterns in any shapes, or groups of shapes and colours, then it should be impossible to create a purely abstract image? As Pollock dripped paint onto a canvas he had a pattern in mind, therefore, it could not be a true abstract image. Abstract art is showing a object in a different way and not the normal way you see it. Taking a picture of a house and turning it upside-down could be classed as abstract, as it's not the normal way we see it.