When I think of abstract art, I feel it is a purposeful act to create an interpretation of an object that is different than it appears, for the sole sake of its interpretation. As well, most modern artists that create abstract art, are doing so in response to modern social issues, for example, in response to industrialization or consumerism. When I view the art of this week, I do not see these pieces as qualifying under either category. I think one thing to keep in mind is not only the skill level, as these artists are literally creating art, not just a piece of art but the entire idea of art. They are inventing the means to create, the medium and the idea. That is not abstract, that is learning, much like a child learns to draw or write. Yes, they may appear rudimentary and abstract by our modern means (in some cases at least) but that doesn’t qualify them as abstract, rudimentary or even unskilled, as some of the examples of art we are unsure exactly how these early artists created their work, and dare I say, cannot be replicated without modern tools.
I think the most important issue is the intent. Did the artist create what we define as an abstract representation of a woman because the artist wanted to create it in a different manner than he saw it? Or was in crafted in that manner for what it does represent? A woman with large breasts and large hips would be thought to be more fertile and more likely to reproduce. A woman with large buttocks and thighs would probably have the means to survive a lean hunting season. These are representations of what was sought after for their survival, with emphasis on what was the most important attributes. Combine this with the materials and tools available and I feel this entirely disqualifies these works as abstract art.