Hi Beth,
Coincidentally, I was working on a presentation on abstract photography which I'm supposed to deliver in 11 months. Haha, I have to start now, because it will take that long to organize my thoughts.
The first thing I wanted to consider was the whole question of what exactly is abstract photography? So often we are presented with what I regard as a somewhat dogmatic definition: an abstract image is one where the viewer can't really discern the nature of the object presented. Instead, the image relies on shape, form, pattern, etc. to reveal the "inner essence" of that object.
At the other extreme, we have the category "documentary" which is often defined as the "pure" representation of reality, with no modification whatsoever.
That places many of us in this never-never land, where we don't fit neatly into any rigidly defined category. As you have discerned by looking at my work, I don't find these rigid categories useful or necessary.
In fact, ALL photography is an abstraction. This is because the world we perceive is four dimensional, but "flat" art forms, like photography or painting, eliminate two of those dimensions (time and volume), or at best represent them metaphorically. I find it interesting that the categories of "abstract" and "documentary" are typically the only ones that have to do with an imagae's relation to the representation of reality, while all the other categories have to do with the subject matter portrayed.
So I have my own definition what an abstract image is:
An image for which the representation of reality is purely of secondary importance. Primary emphasis is on metaphor, imagination, shapes, lines, structures, etc. Insofar as objects are recognizable, they are put into a context where the
abstraction of their reality is the predominant aspect.
From this point of view, abstract photography is not a modern phenomenon, but one that has arisen right along with the medium itself. For example, look at this Photogram of Algae, by Anna Atkins in 1843: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Anna_Atkins_algae_cyanotype.jpg . Yes, it is algae. But more than that, it portrays the fractal patterns that we find everywhere in nature. I would further say that the sense of wonder invoked by those patterns is the primary goal of the image. Otherwise, a pen and ink drawing would have been far more "realistic."
We find many architectural abstracts on 1x that are extensions of that idea. Take this one - http://1x.com/photo/533166/all:user:71398 - for example, that just got "published". It is clearly a tunnel of some sort, and it is clearly a silhouette of a man. So does that mean it shouldn't be posted under "abstract"? That would be ridiculous.
So, as far as I am concerned, you have nothing to worry about with your new images, either for their placement in the "abstract" category or their general classification as photography. A photograph, after all, is nothing more than the capture of light, or rather, reflections of light.
As for your images, I would not worry about critiques. Yes, get them if you think they can help you technically. Just remember that a critique will not help you with your artistic vision. As has been pointed out several times here, the fact that an image on 1x is popular or not, "published" or not, reflects the tastes of the people on 1x. When Georgia O'Keeffe was 51, many people considered her washed up. Critics panned her focus on New Mexico, especially her desert images. But she stuck to her vision, and had she not, she would at best be remembered as a commercially oriented hack.
As for the images you posted, I think this is a path worth pursuing. They may not be my cup of tea (one look at my portfolio, and you can tell I'm drawn to bold colors and tonality), but this would be the worst reason in the world to stop. I think the idea behind these images is a fascinating one, though, and I look forward to seeing more of these, whether they are "popular" or not!
Sorry for the book-length reply,
Tom