For the last century the western world has overseen a decline in aesthetics broadly. Modernization has brought with it uninspiring architecture, uninspiring art, and uninspiring people. This culture focused on economic growth, consumerism, and secular thought has neglected mankind's legacy of meaningful aesthetics. In the modern day it would seem that the aesthetic qualities of any given thing are more determined by a quantitative cost-benefit analysis, ignoring a qualitative assessment of what a given thing means or represents. While this argument is not new to many, what I intend to do on top of that is explore the relationship between tradition and aesthetics to learn more about their importance.
Global homogenization (Globo-Homo), the reduction of cultural distinctions, customs, and folklore into a singular mystery-meat culture has eroded aesthetics. In the absence of a distinct culture to identify with no one is opting to put in the effort to visually represent their identity, because they don't have an identity they value, they are without roots. This has resulted in the infamously unambitious NPC outfit of jeans/shorts, t-shirt, and sneakers being worn by the majority of the population with limited variance. To these people an outfit is only to be comfortable, never to have any purpose as meaningful as honoring one's heritage or even just to match an occasion. As has been brought up by Jordan Peterson (in spite of his later betrayal of classical menswear), the average adult dresses no differently than a child, they appear as overgrown children, lacking a level of dignity or identity beyond that of a child.
The Globo-Homo process coincides with a growing disregard for tradition. In a secular world of primarily economic motives any customs surrounding what things ought to look like and represent are forgotten and any motive to make things look appealing otherwise is scarce and will tend to lack precedent.
Liberal individualism can't be trusted to generate pleasing aesthetics. It makes aesthetically consequential decisions based on how much quantifiable utility can be had for the least amount of effort. One such issue is "inclusion" which erases any meanings or traditions connected to a given thing in order to suit foreigners who find our aesthetic traditions unrelatable. Liberal people and institutions embody an uninspiring ugliness with relative consistency because of this. This presents an opportunity for the traditionally minded to demonstrate the thoughtfulness and appeal of classical aesthetics.
The traditionally minded person is different in that they do see value in their identity and heritage. While the liberal individualist might say that heritage is unearned and it should not be a point of pride, the traditionalist would say that their heritage is quite consequential regardless of their appreciation for it. It is more productive to act harmoniously with one's heritage than to battle against it. One would also point out that the liberal system does seem to have a willingness to celebrate heritage as long as it isn't white or christian. Liberalism is only willing to celebrate that which is ugly, foreign, or otherwise subversive. If ugliness finds itself in opposition to tradition, perhaps tradition is onto something.
By visually representing identity through thoughtful aesthetic choices a traditionalist can be a light to a nihilistic and unaesthetic world. Beauty in the presence of ugliness can demonstrate that tradition does still have meaning and society's choice to forget that has been a negatively consequential one which we can work to undo. To present oneself in a classically dignified fashion is to demonstrate the dignity of your heritage, identity, and beliefs as a traditional person. As an ambassador of tradition it is your duty to present it as dignified, to be distinct from the pajama-wearing overgrown children wandering the western world. If this dignity is legitimate within you it should be outwardly evident.
The traditional person favoring a timeless and perrenial way of thinking is best to exhibit a timeless and perrenial aesthetic. Those men most accomplished in arts, sciences, and theology throughout history usually presented a dignified and masculine aesthetic. Often what makes something aesthetically inspiring is its connection to accomplishment. The traditional thinker intends to honor historic accomplishments. To appear traditionally and unapologetically masculine is a meaningful act in a world where history's most accomplished men are being deliberately undermined and forgotten. (Perhaps rightfully assuming all of my readers are male here)
This is in contrast to the pathology of the anti-traditional leftist who is often very mentally unwell with a poor sense of identity. They tend to harbor resentment towards tradition as they are at odds with any imperative towards something other than shallow selfish ambitions and eating the rich. They resent values such as excellence, discipline, and hierarchy because they understand that they lack what it takes to excel in those categories. Leftism in some sense is the dismantling of meritocratic systems towards maximal inclusion so the leftist can pursue more shallow pleasure seeking and comfort than any right-wing society would encourage.
As we have observed, in the pursuit of maximal inclusivity the leftist dismantles heritage and traditions for being exclusionary. This shows in their aesthetic output, a rootless ugliness permeates their institutions and their people are often subversively flamboyant, expressing themselves with an incoherent mismatch of things to subvert expectation, rather than a coherent aesthetic derived from some historic purpose.
Traditional and religious thinking is usually defined at its core by heteronomy, meaning behavior guided by outside forces, in contrast to autonomy which is behavior derived from the self. The heteronomous thinker is pursuing a purpose greater than themselves with every action, while the autonomous one is prone to seeking selfish interests in comfort, pleasure, novelty, and little else.
This particular subject is controversial in an individualistic world where people are encouraged to express freely and without limits. However, to the traditional person it is a matter of respect for the occasion to dress appropriately. Especially when the occasion is sacred in nature, such as church. To the liberal individualist it is offensive for such an expectation to interfere with their individual expression. In a world dominated by autonomous attitude a heteronomous decision to dress in honor of something other than yourself is dissent towards the status quo. Dressing up is not a matter of seeking attention for yourself but one of selflessly and humbly giving honors where they are due. Bringing up heteronomy is not a defense of "business casual" as a policy, but to suggest that we can dress in honor of things much more meaniningful than the rules of a workplace.
Liberal thinkers sometimes suggest that dressing for heteronomous reasons means that your appearance is inauthentic, as if the only honesty that can exist is autonomous individual expression. As if a necessary precondition for something's authenticity is the wearer finding it exciting in a consumeristic way, a very poor logic. The traditional thinker practices reverence for tradition and its aesthetics, and that is their justification for their aesthetic choices. Because this is not entirely inward in origin it is thought of as illegitimate by liberalism, but inward thinking is often anti-traditional, self indulgent, and at odds with divinity in most cases. See my article on the topic if you are interested.
How can it be known that someone is dressing selflessly if everyone including the irreverent are expected to dress the same? Then there are selfish and selfless reasons to dress exactly the same. This argument appears commonly in relation to business casual policies where it does have merit, but is misapplied in places where there are no such expectations on the irreverent, which is most places. The major exception being formal events like weddings where the appearance of the event itself is agreed to be more important than any participant's ability to freely express, undoing any need for maximal individual expression.
Pleasing aesthetics are the fruit of several highly valued traits in people. A disciplined person will have a good physique, a thoughtful person will have good hygiene, a deliberate person will dress to suit a purpose or occasion, and so on. A pleasing appearance signals good characteristics, although it may be difficult to achieve every good trait at once. Someone who seeks to improve themselves across all categories can measure success visibly in this way.
As they relate to textiles, architecture, and other arts, traditional aesthetics sit at an intersection of history, anthropology, and other humanities. All disciplines that are firmly in the domain of the traditionalist. Intentional thought towards why aesthetic traditions exist is a meaningful anthropological and historical exercise. (Why don't you button the bottom button of a vest or jacket? What do fabric patterns signify? And so on.) Any thinker who is enthusiastically engaged with these disciplines will likely retain aesthetic traditions and show them in their appearance.
Anyone pursuing excellence in all fields will at some point realize that aesthetics is a point of connection between most valued disciplines.
Within Christianity a core concept is "sanctification", meaning to be "set apart" to belong to something else. In this case to be set apart from the world and belong to God. Sanctification is an aspirational process that the christian goes through as part of their journey towards Christ-likeness. To be in this world but not of it, to "ride the tiger". This effect should be present among christians and the traditionally minded, they should appear set apart from the rest of the ugly uninspiring world that the world may notice and aspire towards something productive themselves.
It could be argued that what we perceive as the highest forms of beauty are divine in origin and that alignment with divinity is inherently aesthetically pleasing. And perhaps that tuning oneself into aesthetics is tuning into the divine. One's outward appearance should signal inner virtues such as self-control, humility, modesty, selflessness, and kindness as described in scripture such as Collosians 3:12 and 1 Peter 3:3-4, and should signal separation from worldly patterns as in Romans 12:2.
Some may suggest that biblical figures such as John The Baptist and his primitive camel skin outfit would contradict the theme of this article. However, an extremely ascetic outfit is thoughtful and does send a meaningful message, in the case of John it signaled disregard for shallow material things in favor of the spiritual and served as a contrast from the luxurious decadence of the religious elite at the time. A lazy outfit like jeans and a t shirt is not equal to this as it fits in with every other worldly person's appearance. An ascetic appearance such as John's is actually very justifiable in the context of this article it only has to be very thoughtful and purposeful. Biblically, the extravagant dressings of kings like Solomon, priests, etc are depicted positively, as well as John's camel skins. Indicating that acceptable appearances encompass anything which thoughtfully fulfills some religious purpose and is distinct from the world.
Dignified aesthetics are not best achieved through overconsumption of designer clothes, expensive cars, and other forms of vanity as those are "of the world". To be in the world but not of it is to present oneself with an implicit dignity, not an explicit and excessive signal that you are willing to spend too much money. The case can be made that worrying much about appearances at all is a vain materialism, however in the modern day with mass production and thrifting, traditional wardrobes, home decor, etc are not necessarily more expensive than generic ones. The difference between inspiring and uninspiring aesthetic choices is taste more than it is money. If anything the longevity of traditional items lends them to being a better stewardship of resources.
Some would say that it is a waste of effort to think so much about appearances every day, but a counterpoint would be that achieving an appealing wardrobe, inspiring home-decor, and a generally aesthetic life is a one-time effort that can easily be made in place of most people's 1-3 average daily hours of short form video consumption. After this effort has been made once it does not waste effort or cause decision fatigue for the future. The only long term increase in effort implied here would be in hygiene.
Those who advocate for traditional or classical aesthetics within institutions such as academia have been seen as worryingly adjacent to fascism by peers. This is a label which means absolutely nothing coming from those who insist on ugliness, if they could provide an effective alternative perhaps we could take them seriously. Just because one historic political ideology prioritized aesthetics doesn't mean that it is wrong to do so in the modern day. Nor is it the case that fascists were the first or the last group to do this.
We should continue advocacy for traditional forms of beauty within institutions and be shining examples of those forms ourselves.