Abstract ?

[Jacques]

Taken with the 58 1.4

[Bjørn Rørslett]

#3 and 4 appear to be on to the appropriate track to diverting content and impact away from familiar shapes.

[Jakov Minić]

#4 almost looks like a piece from the Escher museum

[Björn Carlén]

Beautiful! Especially number 3 and 4.

[LandNSea]

I like #4  -  it has impact, strength , design and shading.

I agree it reminds one of Escher.

[Thomas Stellwag]

no 3 has 2 different faces if you leave it like it is or if you take off the dark edge on top -  without the dark area you have to think what it is,
with the edge everybody recognises immediately "architecture" not straigt and not designed, but as evolution of a building
no 4 is a very well seen detail of common architecture, pulled out of the normal vision
btw, i like all 4 images, but i would be able to do the first 2 myself, so i do not critisize them 

@ Jakov: this would be a o.t. discussion: imo Escher cannot be done by or compared to photography,  because he "bended" the space rectangular  - maybe he is an "anti Zeiss", who inverted the famous 3D pop into a twisted 2D layer - i don´t know.....

[Jakov Minić]

Thomas, yes, talking about Escher can only be nice.
In my comment I used the word - almost.

I believe that Escher can be used in photographic terms.
The image that Jacques posted had the same grey tones as Escher's graphics. Also, it makes trick on you as to what you saw in the image. Escher was bending both ways and probably in ways that we cannot even comprehend. His museum is here in The Hague and I often visit and admire his metamorphosis works

Just like in Hofstadter's Pulitzer winning masterpiece - Godel, Escher, Bach, I believe that art and science are interconnected.
Hence, photography is both art and science

[PeterN]

Especially #4 strikes me altouhj I also like the others. To me the lines converge nicely in that photo.

[Gary]

#4 is my favorite.