I wonder if you could be a little more specific here. I think I know what you mean but there is a bit missing from your question. Are you referring to a specific time period? Or are you asking why, over the course of history, painters are more renowned than sculptors? The reason I mention this is because when we look back over the whole history of art, there are times when painting seems to be the focus of major commissions while at other times, sculpture is the primary focus of historians. Overall, it would be impossible to conclude that one medium was more renowned than another throughout history.

Let's compare two distinct time periods to illustrate this point. If we look to classical Greece and Rome, especially when using an introductory text for art history (I will use Stokstad's book here) you can see that the most significant works of art in terms of quality and quantity are sculpture and architecture. Part of this is because these works are much more likely to survive over time but they were also major cultural talking points among viewers of the day. For example, the Aphrodite of Knidos by Praxitiles was a very noteworthy piece of art for its time as it pushed the boundaries of good taste by portraying a female nude (according to legend, Aphrodite herself was said to have asked when the artist had seen her bathing--a testament to the renown of the artist).

Furthermore, the merits of both mediums were famously debated during the Renaissance in what was called the "Paragone" (for some of this information, I refer to the more comprehensive definition found in Oxford Art Online). Here artists and critics alike argued over the virtues of painting and sculpture. Renaissance artists were particularly taken with the works of classical sculptors (such as Praxiteles!) and thought that sculpture was an ideal way to engage with and improve upon the works of the past. Sculpture, for them was a way of exploring naturalism in three dimensions and, if the remaining works of antiquity were any indication, was also more likely to endure the test of time. One of sculpture's most famous supporters was Michelangelo, who argued that painting was only good in that it could approximate the three dimensionality that existed already in sculpture.

On the side of painting, author/artists such as Bruneslleschi (famous for his treatise on Perspective) argued that it was through painting that the artist could convey an entire scene, give a sense of narrative, and also make use of mathematical techniques to convey the illusion of depth. It also required the appropriate use of color. Mastery of painting was put forth as both a technical and intellectual skill.

So what I am getting at here is that history tends to privilege different mediums at different times depending on what artifacts remain and what values society holds. As the Renaissance shows us, the preference of specific media was highly subjective and always up for debate. Furthermore, artistic renown varies by era. If you consider the scope of human history, much of what remains is in the more permanent medium of stone. However named artists (who came much later in history) come from all fields.

I hope this helps!