Is it absurd for an artist to move somewhere to pursue his art?

Question

Recently a colleague of mine informed me that he moved to a major metropolis exclusively to play music in a band. I was incredulous. Despite the massive influx of artists to major cities such as New York, likely numbering in the tens of thousands yearly, potentially even serviced by boutique realtors who cater to the needs of the art crowd, I was absolutely dumbfounded that an artist would move to a major city to perform his art. Utterly shocked.

Was my reaction justified, or was it odd?

(i'm anorexic)

Answer 1

Well, I guess as long as he knows where the welfare office is over there he should be OK.

Answer 2

I would say that it was odd. If you want to pursue something, it's better to do what you can to follow that dream rather than sit back in the safe-zone and regret it later. And art is an artist's life, not to be redundant or anything. Though you were just being concerned if that's what he wants to do, he should do it. It could be the chance of a lifetime, who knows.

I mean, if you were an artist, (I'm guessing you might be) you should be able to understand.