I remember a time before my teenage years when the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition was the hottest thing you could grab every year. My experience is the perspective as a millennial growing up and defined by the dot com era and the social media influx. Truly, we are the last hybrid analog/digital generation that will remember a time before modems conversing with one another in chirps and hisses. I recall, with zero nostalgia, lots of coverage of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and behind-the-scenes videos on evening news coverage. In the 90s, it brought in views for the show. The images would then be leaked online — which has been the case since the early web. It would negate any reason why people would even bother to purchase the magazine. Some of the images were put online for promotional reasons and at other times, it was because of the models using it to promote themselves. In 2024, we’re beyond the stage of images being leaked on forums — instead, they’re all over social media. Therefore, the images aren’t even stolen because the copyrights are surrendered. But perhaps more than anything, I don’t understand why the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition still exists.
I occasionally browse magazines in the pharmacy. On a recent trip, I was perplexed when I saw the 2024 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. Why does this still exist, considering the world today?
The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition shows one thing: the idea of treating photography as content and not as photographic art. Content is something designed to be fleeting and to please an algorithm of some sort. Art is meant to last.
The Lack of Importance Regarding Photography Like This
Rather than thinking of the models as muses, we should see them as the heroes of our images that they rightfully are.
Photography in magazines and publications has generally evolved to become far more effective because we’ve needed to adapt to how we receive stimuli. I’m defining effectiveness by how it emotionally impacts people, which can be gauged by how the web proliferates photographs.
In photojournalism, you have to document the intimate, emotional, newsworthy details, etc. But obviously, this isn’t photojournalism—and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition isn’t trying to be. Instead, it’s a case of photographers seeing models simply as human props. Rather than thinking of the models as muses, we should see them as the heroes of our images that they rightfully are.
Playboy is the modern pinup — whereas the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is akin to an Instagram post that was printed on cheap CVS paper.
You can perhaps say the same thing about Playboy — but there’s credible evidence that you’d be wrong. That magazine has always had more of an emphasis on ideas and glamour for their shoots. Carianne Older, a Playboy Photographer, told us in an interview, “I am taking timeless photos for people that will live forever. A lot of people out there are just taking iPhone photos or videos for the sake of content.” This is a very important point, as there’s a clear difference between content and art.
They’ve also featured photographers like Allan Teger for his unique work making bodies look like landscapes. Photographer Jvdas Berra, who we’ve also interviewed many times, has shot for Playboy on more than one occasion. These photographers make photos that contain artistic expression and are made for more than just a quick dopamine boost. All of these photographers make artistic images with unique ideas and lots of effort being put into the shoots. Indeed, Playboy is the modern pinup — whereas the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is akin to an Instagram post that was printed on cheap CVS paper.
But if you open up this edition of the magazine, the images are all very plain. An influencer with an iPhone and knowledge of how to edit could make similar photographs. That’s not an insult to the photographer, Yu Tsai. Instead, it lacks an understanding of how modern photography has changed and also with the art direction.
Beyond this, there are so many better photographers out there. Photographers like Ken Kiefer, Maria Svarbova, Elena Iv-skaya, and Eszter Sarah all do significantly better jobs photographing women in swimsuits. They also put art at the forefront.
Instead of thinking of the models as muses, we’re often not thinking of them as the heroes of our images.
The original reason people bought magazines like this was to look at women in swimsuits, which was further promoted by the sexualization of women. Today, I truly like to believe that we’ve moved beyond this—though at the same time, we’ve rooted ourselves even deeper.
The Obvious: A Desensitization and Internet Prevalence
For many years, men bought the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition simply to play a staring contest with the magazine’s pages. The generations of men since have become desensitized thanks partly to modern fashion, and the feminist movement. If men truly wish to see simple images of a woman in a swimsuit, they could go to the beach. Even if they wanted to see a bit more skin, they could, quite literally, just walk outside. And if they wanted to see all the photos, they could go to Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, etc. Kate Upton leaked the fact that she was the cover model earlier this year. Truly, the models are using social media just to promote themselves more than anything else. It’s a little bit of content that they’re intentionally treating like another piece of disposable trash thrown into an already polluted river of social media — all while maintaining the mentality of, “What does my little contribution really matter?”
Consider this: they’ve never had men in the magazine or on the cover.
The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition shows one thing: the idea of treating photography as content and not as photographic art. Content is something designed to be fleeting and to please an algorithm of some sort. Art is meant to last.
The Phoblographer’s staff, mind you, is mostly made up of women. In fact, we’re the only large photography publication still standing where that’s still the case. So I asked them all — and none of them could figure it out either. Instead, they all concluded that it’s probably all around Sports Illustrated trying to stay relevant. After the scandal around AI writing their articles, how else could they adapt?
As it is, there was a time when very few women appeared on the cover of the regular magazine. So consider this: they’ve never had men in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition or on the cover. We asked Google about this, and once again, it’s proof that their AI is doing a terrible job.
Heidi Klum and Maria Sharapova surely aren’t men. But further searching couldn’t give us an answer either.
Why Does The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition Still Exist?
So why does the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition still exist? Well, I think it’s probably just so that the publisher has a different way to sell advertising units. If it can’t evolve to meet the demands of a new type of consumer, though, perhaps it’s time to let it remain a vestige of the past.