it's commendable that sports illustrated devoted an entire issue to girls with eating disorders.
why would anyone pay money for this? don't people know they can get movies of hot girls getting boned sideways for free on the internet? it's much more efficient than pictures of models wearing shoelaces. maybe i could understand for teenagers, in 1994, with no money, who couldn't buy porn because their asshole older cousin wouldn't get it for me.
or maybe it's considered "art". the photographer obviously takes pride in his/her work and no doubt considers himself/herself an artist. but can't you find a better venue than a sports mag? doesn't that degrade your work by pandering to the sex drives of meatheads? aren't you selling out?
it's tantamout to having your paintings hung on the walls of an airport - ostensibly your art becomes wallpaper.
the only art i'm really impressed with here is that of the airbrushers. look how shiny everything is.