<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress.com" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>philpatton &amp;laquo; WordPress.com Tag Feed</title>
	<link>http://en.wordpress.com/tag/philpatton/</link>
	<description>Feed of posts on WordPress.com tagged "philpatton"</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:22:23 +0000</pubDate>

	<generator>http://en.wordpress.com/tags/</generator>
	<language>en</language>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Gone in Sixty Seconds]]></title>
<link>http://theerrantaesthete.com/2008/06/21/gone-in-sixty-seconds/</link>
<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Errant Aesthete</dc:creator>
<guid>http://theerrantaesthete.com/2008/06/21/gone-in-sixty-seconds/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[&#8220;A Polaroid was an object of a certain size and shape. It didn’t lend it self to easy reproduc]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class='snap_preview'><blockquote><p align="center">&#8220;A Polaroid was an object of a certain size and shape. It didn’t lend it self to easy reproduction the way even Instamatic film did. A Polaroid was essentially a one-of-a-kind object, like an oil painting or daguerreotype.&#8221;</p>
<p>A great piece by Phil Patton <a href="http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/gone-in-sixty-seconds">on the design legacy of Polaroid</a>. [via <a href="http://designobserver.com">link</a>]</p></blockquote>
<p align="center">&#160;</p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
