For me, these four photos are of stages, as in places where things might happen. Number 2 with the doors is most like a stage; we can identify the elements an the scale, and imagine how a human might fit into the scene. The others are more abstract, especially the last. What are those four rectangles? Are they windows? If those bricks are the conventional size, then the windows are very small. And what building would have four windows arranged like that? It is almost like a montage of two separate photos. Perhaps the brick wall is closer to us than the rendered wall, so the windows are actually larger than the bricks.
A common (and cliched) photographic technique is to put a human into the scene. Either wait for someone to come along, or use the photographer’s shadow, or whatever. But when we do this, the photo becomes about the person and the relationship between the person and the background; our gaze is directed to the person. When there is no person, the background becomes the foreground.
And these images are solidly about people. The scenes were clearly man-made; they are environments made by people for people. Nature has struggled to enter one scene, but it is not wanted, and it is not thriving. Dead leaves take as much space as the greenery, and even seem to be trying to escape out from between the doors. Or perhaps they are trying to get in.
These are images of very specific places, but not of specific times. If you re-took the photos a year later, the only change would be to the skimpy nature.
A lot of it not fancy places, …
To me, Los Angeles is a fancy place. I’ve only been there once, 30 years ago, three days for work, so I only saw it from car windows to and from the airport. It was very hot outside, but very cold inside buildings and cars. Your photos capture the heat and the man-madeness.
[My questions are rhetorical, reflecting my thoughts. Don’t feel you should answer them.]
It has too much of a 3D feel for my taste.