The article is devoted to the visualization of three key events in the history of Armenia in the work of the artist Grigor Khanjyan: the invention of the Armenian alphabet by Mesrop Mashtots, the Vardanid War for independence. To achieve ideological and aesthetic goals, the artist turned to the monumental genre. The final result was a triptych, now stored in the heart of Yerevan, in the architectural and monumental Cascade complex, in the Gerard Gafeschyan Art Center, in the hall named after the artist. The frescoes are united by cumulation and intentional atemporality of the characters. Another characteristic feature of the triptych is that Khanjyan turned to academic classicism to implement the idea. As an artistic technique, the master uses achrony, shifting the time frame for different characters, but at the same time, remaining faithful to the plot and the entourage of the depicted events. The central part of the triptych resembles a temporary dromos, separating and simultaneously connecting the first and third khorans, epochal events that changed the paradigm of the Armenian nation’s existence. Through the time portal, the Armenian ethnic group flows from the early Middle Ages to our days. A cross-cutting idea is the ideal of the social structure of the Armenian nation, which has gained sovereignty, sought by Khanjyan. The artist models the Golden Age according to the type of social structure of the early Middle Ages, extrapolating the medieval paradigm to the present and tomorrow. The ukhronia of the Reborn Armenia created by the artist is a projection of early medieval Armenia. Among the researchers who conducted an art criticism analysis of this work of Khanjyan, it is perhaps worth highlighting the names of such researchers as N. Stepanyan, N. Eyramjians, V. Gamagelyan, etc., whose works we refer to in our study. This article is intended to partially fill this obvious gap. The scientific novelty of the study lies in its interdisciplinary approach, due to the fact that one of the co–authors is a historian and the other is an art critic. This allowed the authors to conduct a diverse analysis using historical, cultural, semiotic, anthropological, ethnographic and, of course, art criticism approaches.