This year marks the 260th anniversary of the National College of Art and Design - a distinguished record of survival and achievement. The institution has progressed through a series of different incarnations since it was originally established as a private drawing school in 1746.
In whatever form it has existed throughout its history it has rendered a great service to the visual arts in this country.
In its current model, as the most prestigious provider of education in fine art and design, it has been in the heart of old Dublin, in Thomas Street, for 25 years. The suggestion that it might now move to a site at UCD's Belfield campus has generated outright hostility in many quarters - among staff and students and in the local community.
The Crawford College of Art and Design in Cork is similarly facing a proposal to transfer it from its city-centre location. There, too, a valid case is being made that such a move would be an irreversible mistake.
There is genuine, and justified, concern that NCAD could lose its identity and independence. How easily this could happen - and the dire consequences resulting - was well illustrated in the recent article in this newspaper by Katharine Crouan, citing the experience of Winchester School of Art when it merged with a university.
The ethos and mission of a school of art are not the same as those of a more academically-centred university, nor should they be. Assurances that NCAD's autonomy will be safeguarded sound fine today, but that situation could change if the natural order takes its course - larger institutions tend to subsume smaller ones. Furthermore, the case against moving is supported by the role the college plays in the social balance of the local community. Indifference to this concern would be a mistake.
It seems the college looked to relocation as the alternative to expanding the current campus when, according to NCAD director Colm Ó Briain, the Government balked at the €76 million cost attached to a redevelopment project. That option appears to have been sidelined with too much haste. Given recent accounts of Exchequer waste and mismanagement, the price-tag might well be considered to have been a worthy investment.
Ó Briain has made the point that the college has "never received a level of investment commensurate to its status". While arguments for bolstering the resources of institutions which provide for the future needs of medicine, business, science and technology are readily accepted, why should a college that nurtures tomorrow's artists be denied the funding it requires? Does it not have as valuable a role in the formation of the society we aspire to?