In psychology, heuristics are simple, efficient rules, learned or hard-coded by evolutionary processes, that have been proposed to explain how people make decisions, come to judgments, and solve problems typically when facing complex problems or incomplete information. These rules work well under most circumstances, but in certain cases lead to systematic errors or cognitive biases

According to this theory, when somebody makes a judgment (of a target attribute) that is computationally complex, a rather easier calculated heuristic attribute is substituted. In effect, a cognitively difficult problem is dealt with by answering a rather simpler problem, without being aware of this happening.

While working on this new series, I read the book, "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman and was struck by how this applies to the reading of this body of work in particular and my overall work in general.
To have a narrative coaxed by visual clues, our brains are hard-coded to not resist this temptation.
Knowingly not having enough information and/or context does not seem to prevent our brain from reaching conclusions that in it self override any doubt we might have had regarding the reading of these works.

Even when we rationally know we don't have enough information to check or verify any of the "conclusions" we end up with.
The viewer's natural inclination to create narratives are frustrated by the conflicting visual clues beneath the service of these photographs.

Moving away from a more stricter visual narrative I have explored in my preview series, this new "non linear" direction gives me a great opportunity to explore the subtle nuances that touch on the history of NYC and my own relation to this great city.