Henry James, the Mature Master

Bought Sheldon Novick's Henry James, the Mature Master yesterday at Capitol Hill Books. Read the introduction on the homeward train. Ran into this comment on past perceptions of James: "He was vaguely thought to have had ample independent means and so to have been able to write self-indulgent works that never found a wide audience." Having been reading Joyce and Beckett and their biographies over the past couple years, such a sentiment jumps out at me as a contrast to the starving artist that Joyce became and Beckett identified with, however falsely. James, Joyce, and Beckett were all literary artists whose works were never popular outside literary circles. Does the production of all three fall into the category of "self-indulgent works"? Is all art self-indulgent as a matter of course? If a genuine work of art blossoms into popularity, in the grossest sense, is that ever by design on the part of the artist? Or always a matter of luck?