«Ուզում եմ տեսնել հայկական ոգին ժամանակակից ձևերում...» - Հարցազրույց Ալեքսանդր ԹՈՓՉՅԱՆԻ հետ

Karen Agekyan's Interview with Writer, Translator and Literary Critic Alexander Topchyan

Published in issue No. 3 (18) of the journal, this interview addresses the problem of contemporary Armenian self-awareness and the search for ways to unite national identity with the dynamics of world culture.

Introduction and Methodology
The conversation continues a series of discussions on the transformation of the image of the Armenian in the world and is structured as a dialogue in which the interlocutors successively examine historical and cultural examples — from the literature of the Parisian diaspora of the 1920s–30s to the artistic life of Soviet Armenia in the 1960s–70s and the post-Soviet period.

Key Thesis
Topchyan's central thesis is that the Armenian diaspora traditionally gravitates toward frozen, folklorized forms of national culture out of fear of losing its distinctiveness, whereas genuine preservation of identity is possible only through its continuous development and inclusion in the contemporary global context.

The Experience of Diaspora Literature
The author cites the figure of Vazgen Shushanyan as an example of a writer who managed to remain Armenian while being a "citizen of the world":

his prose of inner consciousness anticipated the French "nouveau roman";
his diary entries from 1936–37 contained an early and precise warning about the danger of Nazism;
despite his innovativeness, he was only partially accepted by the diaspora, as he went beyond conventional notions of what was "Armenian."

Soviet-Era Armenia as a Space of Modernity
Topchyan emphasizes that it was precisely in Yerevan of the 1960s–70s that, despite ideological pressure, the intelligentsia managed to combine the national and the modern:

translation activity (Prévert, Lorca, Villon, Rudaki, Japanese poetry) generated instant reader demand;
the journal Garun became a platform for new art;
the generational conflict expressed itself in accusations of "detachment from national values," which the author considers unfounded.

The Post-Soviet Situation and a Critique of Contemporary "Ashugism"
Special attention is given to the crisis of cultural criteria after independence:

theatrical repertoires have remained unchanged for decades;
ideological pressure has been replaced by the absence of any organizing cultural idea;
contemporary art is compared to "civilized ashugism" — a pseudo-revival devoid of genuine spiritual content.

The Author's Creative Position
Topchyan describes his own experience as an attempt at a personal resolution of the problem: while maintaining deep knowledge of ancient and Western Armenian culture, he opposes the "mummification" of tradition, including demands for the restoration of archaic orthography, calling this a form of conservative fetishism.

Conclusion
The key conclusion of the interview is that genuine national revival is possible only as a continuous creative assimilation and reinterpretation of cultural heritage in contemporary forms, rather than as its mechanical preservation; culture, in the author's view, echoing André Malraux, is not inherited but conquered.