When more or less critical words are written in the newspaper about an official, they sometimes call me and prove that it is an “order”, that the writer is guided and provoked. Their concern is not the criticism to be right or wrong, but rather than which representative from their own “warring group” makes intrigues against them. Sometimes, they are asking in surprise what they have done wrong to the journalist writing the material, who definitely does not know them. In other words, the context is clear; I am so perfect, and my industry is thriving so that any negative mentioning about me can only be a result of intrigue of dark forces.
Our eminent composer Robert Amirkhanyan approximately made such an approach to the criticism to his address and the Union of Composers. His reaction is emotional, nervous, and, forgive me to say, inadequate. It is official, non-creative. A group of young composers, in their open letter, raised a number of issues related to the Union. Personally, the names of these young people, to say the truth, do not say anything to me, and their contribution to our culture is incomparable with Amirkhanyan’s contribution. However, there is rational granule in these complaints: whether everything in our musical life is good, whether there is a vibrant, healthy environment. Probably, no. But, the reaction of the President of the Union of Composers to this, as well as to the criticism of his famous colleagues, is within the framework of the standards of Armenia: the official delves not in the content of the saying, but the motivation of the teller: a person saying any bad word against me is guided and provoked.
Or, as our authorities, oligarchs and high-rank clergymen like to say, “Someone has placed an order on me.”
Of course, during this, and in other creative unions, the matter is not personal. They are legacies left from the Soviet system, just as the Academy of Sciences or the Supreme Certification Commission. The form that these institutions now exist is absolutely useless. It is pity to demolish, and useless to operate. It remains to reform it, but how; there is no serious debate about it, because everything leads to a conspiracy theory, and to doubts about opponents’ real or hypothetical material interests. In this sense, the behavior of artists or scientists hardly differs from the approaches of political and economic figures.
Why should they differ? All of them are born in the same environment.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
