It may have even been a clever, artful way of describing the practice, so it felt like a quote, at least in my deteriorated memory of it.
In preservation, we often see examples of pursuit of perfection leading to loss of "the good." There are often cases where advocates for a building/neighborhood fight so hard to make sure that a architect/developer conforms to an "ideal" solution that the developer in the end decides that it's too much trouble to deal with these people and just demolishes or destroys something that might have been at least marginally preserved if the advocates had been more willing to compromise.
Also, there are cases where a property is so carefully and stringently preserved that it becomes a burden to those entrusted with its care and cannot be enjoyed or even observed by the public due to the fragility of the materials. I am reminded of the Isabella Stewart Gardiner museum in Boston; people certainly enjoy that museum, but a provision in Ms. Gardiner's will states that the arrangement of the exhibits at the museum must remain exactly as they were at her death, or all of the materials must be sold and the profits given to Harvard (as if they need it). This really cramps a curator's style, and the interpretation of the will has been so strict that when several paintings were stolen, the museum was (and still is, IIRC) obliged to exhibit empty frames where those paintings were with little placards in them explaining why they are empty.
Sorry for the long post, I hope it was, at least, good.
