Been thinking about this quite from aaron straup cope (for context: museum worker, mostly on digital projects, at Cooper Hewitt and SFO Museum among others) quite a bit recently.

"I think the question of whether or not to outsource curatorial practice is a good opening to discuss the broader practice of outsourcing in general in the cultural heritage sector. It certainly easier for more people to relate to than the question of whether or not we should outsource digital and technology roles. This is a larger debate that we, as a community of practice, should have because I think that one risk of relentless outsourcing is that museums (and friends) will become nothing more than centers of production rather than scholarship.

If we say that our only purpose is to facilitate the assembly of content in the service of culture then it's no longer clear to me what distinguishes the cultural heritage sector from any other for-profit entertainment company. If we are unable to articulate, even to ourselves, what distinguishes our work from that produced by the private sector then maybe it really is time to admit there's nothing special about what we do. And importantly there are other people who do it — where it is pure and selfish entertainment — better than we do."

I don't work in museums, though I do like to archive things as a hobby. But more than that: if you're doing something not because you enjoy it (but because it's work, or because you think it has to be done), sometimes it's worth thinking about what you're actually doing, and whether or not it's already being done better.

(And maybe it's not! That's not unexpected! But maybe there's something else more useful to do. But of course have fun too: ain't nobody having fun for you better than you can.)