A similar point of view?

They are both images of nothing in particular.

Morry Katz

I see similarities--neither image has a level horizontal line.

The notch in the black board up left is in the same place as the tree. The leg support for the same is in the same place as the fence post (roughly). You have a 'horizon' in both images that both tilt the same way. So there is a similarity in shape, but that's all there is in common to my eye. I can't draw any more parallels.

To my eye they are quite different in almost every respect. The only slight similarities I see are: the diagonal and the two panes of similar colour, and perhaps the angles of the shots. Both lack a clear subject (i.e. the eye wanders) defined by placement in the frame(s) or focus.

The thing that struck me first up, was their cold colour. They both look, at least on my screen, quite cool.

The fence post on the paddock picture has a very cool cyan look on the front and top, the same coolness or cyan look is also in the white part of the cupboard and the timber on the brick wall.

Mick.

Both have similar strong diagonal movement -- lower left to upper right
Both have strong textural components
Very different emotional content

Thanks everyone.

To address the remarks: yes, they are pictures of nothing in particular, in the sense that they're not about a specific subject. They're not abstracts, but I think they're more about colour and composition than a mimetic representation. Cool tone: I'm afraid I introduced a slight cyan cast in adjusting the levels after the scan.

The reason why I queried the criticism was that to me they are interesting for the same reasons: formalism, colour, diagonals, etc. But when I showed the left hand side to someone, I had a terribly cold reaction, whereas the right hand side one garnered a much more positive reaction.

It struck me that this kind of pictures is utterly technical in nature, and the point is perhaps lost (and rightly so) to anyone who isn't interested by the pictoriality of images. Subject matters much more to most people, and it's what creates an emotion or a reaction in the viewer. Composition is there to support the subject, but in and out of itself, it is interesting only to a small minority of people.

I personally saw something very similar in both pictures, because I did not create them directly out of interest for their subject; rather out of interest for the juxtaposition of colour planes.

It's terribly cerebral as motivation, I know. But, as I explained it to the same person, the fact that even the most banal things like boards and walls can be structured together pictorially is a reassuring thought: no matter how bland the world may appear, we could always still strive to find a way to put it together in a more interesting fashion.

I think after that discussion, I will focus a bit more on pictures that can engage people on another level than the conceptual one. I do like formalism, and juxtaposed planes, but I'm afraid it can't get me much further with an audience.

As per the OP and just my 2 cents...
The images are dissimilar in a good many ways. the landscape is compositionaly simpler and the content is familiar, non threatening, and pulls the eye in. The colours on the landscape are near to, but not quite complementary so there is a lot of vibration between the two planes without there being too much. The other shot is an interesting composition, but it is more complicated. There is some similarity in that there are large colour fields, but they are arranged differently and there are essentially three of them. The other image is not of familiar items nor does the content draw you in, but in fact pushes back a bit. The colours are somewhat complementary, but are not as close as the landscape and not as saturated so the image lacks the same kind of energy.