Why were Joshua Reynolds's historical paintings considered less successful than his portraits?

While Joshua Reynolds is celebrated as a preeminent portraitist, his historical paintings—such as Ugolino (1773)—are often cited as his least successful works.1

The primary reason for this perceived lack of success stems from his frustrated ambition to master the "history painter" genre. Although Reynolds possessed a profound knowledge of the old masters and sought to elevate British art through the formal rhetoric of the continental Grand Style, his attempts to apply these elevated, heroic concepts to historical subjects occasionally resulted in bathos—a descent into unintended absurdity or anticlimax.12

Furthermore, while Reynolds was a master of portraiture, he was not a skilled draftsman, a deficiency that likely hindered his ability to execute the complex, large-scale compositions required for successful historical painting. His technical approach, which often involved experimental use of glazes and pigments, also frequently compromised the longevity and quality of his work. Ultimately, his historical pieces struggled to achieve the same natural vigor and insight that defined his most acclaimed portraits.1