There is no problem painting the Lord with blue eyes and white. Just as there is no problem painting him as Inuit, Japanese, African, Chinese or any other variant of human being.
@Catherineanne I agree that there is no difference between painting him as a different race, but it is still fundamentally inaccurate to depict him in this way. Is this not allowing ignorance and further separating Jesus from his historical/geographical context? Besides, we do not know what he ever looked like to begin with. (Also, your profile indicates an understanding person, and I aim to respect that. Don't be put off by my possibly facetious remark.)
It cannot be fundamentally inaccurate, given that the Lord himself said, 'Inasmuch as ye have done this to the least of these my little ones, ye have done it unto me.'
Christ is found in every face, every colour, even every creed. I would expect a Japanese person to depict Christ as Japanese. And I find no problem depicting him with blue eyes; why not? He can and indeed does have every colour of eye that exists.
Art is not photography (although of course photography can be art.)
@Catherineanne I suppose you are talking about God or perhaps moral characteristics and not actually Jesus, then. I understand that the idea of the trinity exists, but Jesus was a physical man, right? He was born of a Middle Eastern woman, and presumably looked like any other person of that area, since no special mention is made about odd physical characteristics. If we were to paint God, that could be potentially more personalized since the Bible says He created people in His image, so His image could be more amorphous. I have heard from a Christian that God only included certain things in the Bible on purpose, and that the things which are not included are not important. If you agree, does this not apply to Jesus' earthly image? Also, I am not clear on why the Bible verse you quoted is relevant.
The historical Jesus was indeed a physical man, but he was also fully God. Depictions of him may be representations of either facet, or indeed something else entirely. It is far less accurate to claim, 'This is what he was and is not' than to depict him as a particular man (or indeed woman, as some I have seen.) Art is not photojournalism.
To complain of blue eyes is rather to miss the point. It is only through the Incarnation that we can paint God at all, rather than reflecting him through his creation.
If you want to know what Jesus looks like, just look in the mirror; look in the eyes of your children or friends. And then paint him. : )
