Ever increasing circles
Ever increasing circles
(Part I)
[l. 1] With 400 different-sized rings in spiralling formations over a field almost a kilometre square, the latest [l. 2] crop circle formation looks pretty impressive. From the air it has an eerie geometric beauty, as if the circles just [l. 3] dropped quietly on to the field at Alton Barnes in Hampshire last week. From the ground, the wheat seems to [l. 4] have been swept downwards by a benign force, as if water has been poured over the crop.
[l. 5] With respect to its creators, it's quite well made - though there is evidence of sloppiness - but [l. 6] mathematically and aesthetically it's one of the most boring and predictable advanced formations made in [l. 7] the past few years. At first glance, it has employed no geometry or arithmetical principles that have not already [l. 8] been used in crop circles and little new skill or imagination was needed. While superficially beautiful, it is [l. 9] remarkable only for its scale.
[l. 10] By my estimation it took a team of six people approximately five hours to make, but quite considerably [l. 11] more to plan. The makers probably had a lot of fun doing it, had a pint or two before they started and a good [l. 12] breakfast in a service station as they sped back to
(Part II)
[l. 14] My hunch is that this one comes courtesy of Rod Dickinson and John Lundberg, or at least their "school" [l. 15] of trickster artists. These respected, London-based "post-situationists" specialise in giant anonymous fieldworks [l. 16] and have been active circle makers for at least five years. [l. 17 ] I met them in a Wiltshire layby one summer night three years ago (…). We went into the pre-chosen field [l. 18] by a " tramline" left by a tractor. All we had were sketches, 100ft-long tape measures marked off at different [l. 19] intervals and 4ft planks with a rope connecting each end. It took the four men several hours to mark out. (…).
[l. 20] The circle believers - paranormalists, esoterics, sceptics, mystics, spiritualists, ufologists, researchers, [l. 21] scientists and others who plot, interpret and appreciate [crop circles] - were ecstatic. They raved about a "truly [l. 22] significant" formation; but when I told them that I had seen it being made they threatened me with legal action, [l. 23] denounced me as a liar. (…)
(Part III)
[l. 24] Circle makers and believers are locked to each other in a symbiotic relationship, a game with unwritten but [l. 25] set rules. The true "believers", cannier now than they used to be and better at spotting "fakes", are convinced [l. 26] that humans could not have made some of the best circles that have been appearing for more than 10 years.
[l. 27] It's easy to understand why: some are staggeringly complex and beautiful, the formations ranging from [l. 28] DNA structures to snowflakes, helices, webs, knots and complex patterns derived from sacred geometry and [l. 29] chaos theory. Every year the believers' explanations as to why some [crop circles] cannot be made by humans [l. 30] become more sophisticated and the makers become more adept at making them, even studying the books they [l. 31] suspect the believers use when they try to classify them.
(Part IV)
[l. 32] The makers are keen to perpetuate the mystery. Careful never to admit responsibility for any specific [l. 33] formation, they do not claim authorship of all the circles that appear each year. Once the makers of a circle are [l. 34] identified, they say, the magic goes and the believers become disillusioned - which spoils it for everyone. So it is [l. 35] that the makers are demonised by the believers, who in turn are demonised by broader society, which cannot [l. 36] accept that they are not man-made, yet cannot see how they are done.
[l. 37] Study carefully the thousands of formations made in the past 10 years and it's possible to see the distinct [l. 38] hand of at least three different design schools - broadly, the geometric, the spiritual and the fractal. But the [l. 39] beauty of the game being played out in the fields of southern
John Vidal, The Guardian, 09/21/2001
Commentaires