Here's the great thing about abstraction:
While a traditional art piece may be technically perfect, often times it ignores the concepts of balance and composition in favor of merely photocopying real art. Once you strip away the "oooh and aah" of the technical skill of many art pieces, you will be left with, in essence, a horrible composition. This is not to say that ALL traditional art has awful composition, there are many masterpieces which have been created with careful attention towards concept and space. That's why they're masterpieces. But now, with many traditional artists merely replicating the same landscapes, flowers, and portraits that have been done a thousand times before, much current traditional art is hardly unique or conceptually interesting. With traditional art, one is (often) merely copying an object with hopes of, essentially, photocopying life onto a 2D plane. Abstract art must take these objects, actions, feelings, or thoughts, and communicate them by not just reproduction, but by EXPANDING upon the ideas.
Some abstract art is crap, and is just some guy drawing squares.
But some of it does go above and beyond and create a work which pulls from the viewer not just admiration for the technical skill or time invested, but an emotional (or sometimes, visceral) reaction.
Okay, so that's my two cents.
For one who may ask, or be all like "hurr hurr you only say these things because you can't draw hurr", I do both traditional AND abstract art, and either can be crappy or wonderful.