Is Nietzsche Monological?

In aphorism # 367 in The Gay Science, Nietzsche states how art and writing can either be monological (for oneself) or art before witnesses (for others). He said that this was the most critical difference in art. While an artist before witnesses was essentially a slave for others, amonological artist worked and forgot the rest of the world.
Nietzsche included artists working for God in artists before witnesses. If an artist was working for God he was still seeking external approval. He said that monological art “was made only by us, the godless.” By including himself as the godless, his art had the potential to be monological. Was it monological? On examination of Nietzsche’s life and writing, it appears that he did not have many relationships with others, and his work was not widely received. His writing style was not teological and aphoristic; not easy to follow for a reader. Also most of his philosophy stressed being a noble spirit and being free of ressentiment, where a person is constantly comparing himself to others. My conclusion is that Nietzsche’s writing in monological, and was written simply for himself.
Nietzsche did not have a solid working relationship with the public. He was a private man with few connections. His books did not have a big audience, as they were not widely received in his lifetime. (Downing lecture, 12/05).
Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms, and snippets. He was not a teological philosopher. He contradicts himself many times. These are not characteristics of a philosopher writing for an audience. It was as if he wrote whatever came to his head at the time and published it. This does not make his work any less brilliant, on the contrary, because he did not have an end to his thinking, he could explore more openly than other philosophers. Nietzsche was free to be godless, and say the things that others are afraid to say. When he contradicted himself, both sides of the argument were true. This made him a unique philosopher, showing that being a monological artist can have its advantages.
A noble spirit for Nietzsche is someone who strays away from the herd. He is unique, and free. He pities the herd but is not envious of them, because they are lesser than him. Nietzsche believed that he was the only free spirit in Europe (Hysjulien lecture). If Nietzsche was a free spirit, then he would create for himself, in monological art, and not art before a witness.

Unfortunately, I would not say I’m as mature as Nietzsche in this. I would be kidding myself if I said that I was a purely monological artist. Although that is a goal for me, much of my drive to be good comes from external praise and the public. Currently I am thinking “wow, I hope the people in my group don’t read this and think I’m really stupid”, for me, the world has not fallen away.
It is debatable whether Nietzsche thinks people like me- part of the herd- can change. I hope that the answer is yes. I guess we’ll just have to wait until I grow up…