As does Ivanhoe.
Why bother. Whatever example you produce, wideawake will find some way of disqualifing it as "great art" or "profitable".
You can't win an argument when the Rules of Engagement are a moving target. The fact that artists in every field of endeavor have managed to make a good living off of their art while creating enduring works will be shrugged off.
Nevertheless, off the top of my head:
Writers: Dumas, Verne, Dickens, Twain, Frost, Heinlein, Asimov, Machiavelli, Doyle
Artists: Rockwell, Parrish, Picasso, Dali, Shultz, Nast, Wyeth
Playwrights: Gershwin Bros., T. Williams, Shaw, Moliere, Mamet
Musicians/Composers: Presley, Sousa, Armstrong, B.B. King, Cohan, Smokey Robinson
Filmmakers: Disney, Welles, Hitchcock
How many copies of The Prince were printed in Machiavelli's lifetime? What did he make in royalties from his most famous and enduring achievement?
Answer: nothing.
Isaac Asimov one of the world's great writers? There's not much consensus there.
Citizen Kane is the essence of Welles' legacy. He knew it would be a complete flop - he actually misled RKO executives about the plot, budget, etc. just so they would make it - and it was a complete fail ure at the box office.
Dali and Picasso are excellent examples of artists who got paid well for their substandard work at the end of their lives while getting paid nothing for their truly great work in their prime.
As I pointed out above, Twain made his money as a journalist - his classic writings were done for his enjoyment at his own pace.
Mamet is a prime example - he himself says that he wrote or cowrote his less inspired scripts (like the Costner vehicle Untouchables) for a paycheck so he could finance his true legacy: Glengarry Glen Ross, etc. And even in movies like that he acknowledges that not only do they lose money, they would have lost more if they didn't have stars like Pacino, Lemmon, Steve Martin, etc. in them.
What Mamet considers his greatest work he produces knowing full well that he will lose money.