Contemporary critics have become so accustomed to incompetence and mediocrity that they simply assume it is the norm.

History painting should be evaluated within its historical context. For history paintings, particularly in 19th century, a sense of drama was essential. Look at Delacroix’s Death of Sardanapalus or Gericault’s Raft of Medusa. Are those pieces melodramatic?
Mawkish? Silly?

I do not know why people like Jonathan Jones (*) have problems with history paintings. I assume they are simply not educated enough.

(*) Those are the same people that regard Damien Hirst’s polka dots as high-end art.

There was a political agenda behind this and other Delaroche paintings. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/feb/24/delaroche-execution-of-lady-jane-grey for a fuller essay.

Very well put, Charley! This reminds me of that damning praise offered to certain artists like this: superb technician. We tend to say this when the technical skill outpaces the investment of emotion or passion. Conversely, we tend to credit an artist with full-blown genius when his or her technical skill is just a reflection of the passion driving the artist.

One tends to view artists like Delaroche with great respect (for the technique) but not with much admiration. You get the impression you are viewing a tableau full of actors rather than the actual event being portrayed. In this regard he was brilliant at painting what he saw and rather poor at summoning what he wanted to feel.