<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>
<channel rdf:about="www.susanphealey.com">
<title>Blog</title>
<link>http://www.susanphealey.com</link>
<description></description>
<dc:language>en-gb</dc:language>
<dc:rights>susanphealey.com</dc:rights>
<dc:date>2011-4-10T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
<dc:creator>susanphealey.com</dc:creator>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="link+1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="link+2" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>
<item rdf:about="link+1">
<title></title>
<link>http://www.susanphealey.com/page18.htm#91387</link>
<description>The site is updated the latest work on.  The decisions were interesting.  What to include for public consumption compared with what work gets held back not shown.So much comes to light with hindsight and only makes sense when seen backwards flowing out in a stream of making and performing.  I am wondering now about the sense of having divided out the work by category  its all studio practice  which act of making followed which act of performance followed which act of making is what is of most interest.  I may have confused the issue by such arbitrary lines of classification.  Perhaps it might be useful to find a way to represent the work solely by chronology too.  Sounds like another project ...</description>
<dc:date>2011-4-10 16:46:11</dc:date>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>

