Recently I’ve started to question something very often: the entire concept of aesthetics.
Not beauty. Not good design. Not craftsmanship.
But the enormous importance we’ve collectively assigned to looking like a certain kind of person.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether a lot of what we call “aesthetics” is actually just status signalling disguised as taste.
We don’t just buy things anymore. We are buying meaning.
You don’t just buy a watch. You buy sophistication.
You don’t just decorate your home. You create an identity.
You don’t just dress well.
You communicate that you’re successful, disciplined, tasteful, wealthy, minimalist, creative, masculine, or whatever the aesthetic of the moment happens to represent.
The object itself becomes secondary. What matters is what the object signals.
And social media has taken this to an extreme. There are aesthetics for everything now.
“Old money.” “Quiet luxury.” “Minimalist.” “Clean girl.” “Dark academia.” “Tech founder.” “Gym bro.”
Even something as ordinary as having a coffee has an aesthetic attached to it. At some point, we’re no longer simply living our lives.
We’re designing the appearance of our lives.
The problem is when the signal doesn’t correlate with the substance
This is where I think aesthetics becomes misleading.
A ₹2 lakh watch doesn’t necessarily tell you anything meaningful about the person wearing it.
A minimalist home doesn’t necessarily mean the person lives a minimalist life.
A perfectly curated physique doesn’t necessarily mean someone is healthy.
A luxury aesthetic doesn’t necessarily mean someone is wealthy.
A sophisticated wardrobe doesn’t necessarily mean someone is sophisticated.
The signal and the foundational reality are two different things.
Yet we constantly treat the signal as evidence of the reality. That’s where the game becomes interesting.
Because humans are terrible at observing things directly. We use shortcuts.
We see the expensive watch and infer wealth. We see the tailored clothes and infer success.
We see the beautiful office and infer that the company is doing well.
We see the perfect body and infer discipline. We see the perfectly curated Instagram profile and infer that someone’s life is equally curated.
Sometimes those assumptions are correct. Sometimes they’re completely wrong.
But the signal works regardless.
Aesthetics is partly a social agreement
Here’s the uncomfortable part.
A lot of what we call “good taste” isn't entirely objective.
Certain colours become sophisticated.
Certain materials become luxurious. Clothes become “classy.” Architectural styles become “premium.” Watches become symbols of success.
Why?
Because groups of people collectively decided that these things represent desirable qualities.
That’s not necessarily bad.
Human beings naturally develop cultural preferences. Beauty, proportion, symmetry, texture and craftsmanship genuinely affect how we experience the world.
But the social meaning attached to those things is constructed.
And once we understand that, the game becomes much easier to see.
We’re not just asking:
“Is this beautiful?”
We’re often subconsciously asking:
“What does liking this say about me?”
And sometimes even:
“What will other people think of me if they see me with this?”
That’s a very different question.
The internet turned taste into a competition
Historically, you could have beautiful things simply because you liked them. Today, you can document them.
And once something can be documented, it can be compared. And once it can be compared, it can become a status game.
Your house versus someone else’s house. Your clothes versus someone else’s clothes. Your physique versus someone else’s physique. Your vacation versus someone else’s vacation. Your desk setup versus someone else’s desk setup. Your coffee shop versus someone else’s coffee shop.
Even your taste becomes something you can compete over.
And that’s where I think aesthetics starts becoming exhausting. Because there’s no natural endpoint.
There is always someone with a better apartment. A better watch. Better clothes. Better skin. Better furniture. Better photographs. Better architecture. Better taste.
The game continuously creates new things for you to want.
The irony is that aesthetics often exists to communicate things that are difficult to verify
We want people to believe we’re successful. So we display things associated with success.
We want people to believe we’re sophisticated. So we adopt things associated with sophistication.
We want people to believe we’re disciplined. So we display the body, routine or lifestyle associated with discipline.
Aesthetics becomes a shortcut for communicating invisible qualities.
And that makes it incredibly powerful. But it also makes it incredibly easy to fake.
You can manufacture the appearance of almost anything.
You can rent the car.
You can finance the watch.
You can borrow the clothes.
You can stage the apartment.
You can curate the photograph.
You can build the entire appearance of a life without necessarily possessing the underlying substance.
The better the signal becomes, the harder it can become to distinguish the signal from reality.
But I don’t think aesthetics is completely meaningless
This is where I would go against my own argument.
Beauty matters. Design matters. Craftsmanship matters. The way a room feels matters.
The way an object works and looks matters.
There is genuine human pleasure in proportion, colour, texture, materials, architecture and form.
A beautifully designed chair can simply be a better chair.
A well-designed building can genuinely improve how you experience a space.
A well-made piece of clothing can make you feel good.
None of that is fake.
The problem isn’t aesthetics. The problem is when aesthetics becomes a substitute for substance.
When looking successful becomes more important than being successful.
When looking healthy becomes more important than being healthy.
When looking intelligent becomes more important than learning.
When looking wealthy becomes more important than building wealth.
When looking interesting becomes more important than actually having interesting experiences.
That’s when we understand most of what you do becomes empty.
So I’ve started asking a different question
Instead of asking: “Does this look good?”
I’m increasingly interested in asking: “Is this actually valuable?”
And then: “Would I still want this if nobody ever saw it?”
That second question is surprisingly powerful.
Would I still wear these clothes if nobody noticed?
Would I still want this house if I couldn’t post photographs of it?
Would I still buy this watch if nobody knew what it cost?
Would I still go to this restaurant if I couldn’t take a picture?
Would I still want this body if there were no mirrors or social media?
Would I still pursue this lifestyle if there were no audience?
If the answer is yes, there’s probably something real underneath the aesthetic.
If the answer is no, perhaps I’m not buying the thing.
Perhaps I’m buying the perception of the thing.
What remains when nobody is watching?
Maybe that’s the distinction I’ve been looking for. Aesthetics isn’t necessarily a scam.
But the status economy built around aesthetics can make us believe that appearance is evidence of substance.
And it isn’t. A beautiful exterior can contain something extraordinary. It can also contain absolutely nothing. The same is true of people, companies, homes, bodies, clothes and lifestyles.
So perhaps the goal isn’t to reject aesthetics. Perhaps it’s to put aesthetics back in its proper place.
Let beauty be beauty.
Let design be design.
Let things be enjoyable because they’re enjoyable.
But don’t confuse the packaging with the product. Because ultimately, when nobody is watching, the signal disappears. And whatever remains is the part that was real all along.
So what is the Antidote?
Simple: It is certainly to start following wealth creation. Not simply in terms of money. Once you understand the difference between status creation games vs wealth creation games, you become a different person.
“Ignore and Avoid people playing status games, they gain status by attacking people playing wealth creation games“
-Naval Ravikanth
P.S: Some or a large part of this blog was written by AI. I had to ideate and give input to articulate my thoughts better and write it in a compelling and persuasive way to have an engaging read.