DJ Pop BOTH Tiddies Out™ 
Everything in the right side is inaccurate. There is no description of Jesus' face in the Bible, and there is no such thing as a firsthand eyewitness recounting of Jesus. All of the New Testament was written too late after his death for that to happen. At best you might have some second hand reports. As for sources outside the Bible, the situation is far worse. You have no mentioning of Jesus existing that is outside people of the early Church (so it would be clearly biased) and they're not any earlier either, so still no chance for firsthand knowledge.
The Shroud of Turin is consistent with the image on the right, as are early icons of Christ based on oral tradition. Image on the right is completely accurate.
@Saber @scarlet @DonLegaracci @Federale @SuperLutheran the mesoamerican artisans first introduced to jesus wouldn’t use spanish sources to base their drawings off, they outright depicted him as an incarnation quetzalcoatl/kukulkan
@EdBoatConnoisseur @scarlet @Saber @DonLegaracci @Federale @SuperLutheran i don't have a huge dog in this fight because what Jesus looked like is irrelevant to me.
just as an interesting note though, here is a painting done by an 8 year old who claimed to have visions of Jesus. there was a man who looked somewhat close to what she had seen so she used his face and tweaked it to paint this. years later a young boy who claimed he visited heaven during a surgery and met Jesus saw the painting and recognized it as Jesus.
make of it what you will, whether it is just a wack story made up by Christians trying to make a dime or if it's real, i still think it's a neat painting (especially for an 8 year old like daaaang) and i can imagine Jesus looking fairly close to this. the picture on the right she made when she was an adult several years ago, basically an updated version.
just remember though, what He looks like is totally irrelevant. as long as He is being portrayed in a way where you can recognize Him as being Jesus. we'll end up knowing what He looks like eventually, it's not something to fret over too much.
I don't have any reason to believe the boy purposefully lied, but that doesn't mean he's right either. People can dream, hallucinate, or just have random images pop up in their mind all the time. So I'm sure he did envision something. The issue is, how would one even tell apart just a random dream you have, and a vision delivered through godly means? And that's ignoring the possibility that it was a deception sent by a demon. There's no way of knowing.
The painting is beautiful though.
@scarlet @Saber @DonLegaracci @EdBoatConnoisseur @Federale @SuperLutheran the real kicker i guess is the connection of the painting between two children who claimed to have met/talked to Jesus and had never had contact with each other.
I'd be impressed if that overall portrayal of Jesus wasn't already present in the Christian american zeitgeist. It's kinda how when people say they encountered aliens they usually give the same grey alien description, because the media we consume is filled with that portrayal of aliens.
So you're left with the dilemma of either people saw grey aliens because aliens are real and that's how they all look like, or people are imagining things and their imagination are just reproducing something they already saw. The same with Jesus.