This essay ventures to evaluate and critically analysecolour theory with reference to Wright(2011) given that information on the subject of colour may welldiverge from high quality, evidence- based academic information to uncorroborated information and/ or personal opinion veiled as knowledge, building up author’sskillsto critically analyse anddiscuss exemplar texts relevant to colour theory and research.
The theme of colour has developed into a dividing line for thinking about models and about art that is created by systems simply because it is such a devourer of models and systems, and has attracted and in due course confounded methodical innovators in philosophy and psychology with that of writers, painters, composers who endeavor to make use of pre-compositional systems.The multidisciplinary approach to the role of colour in contemporary aesthetics and social sciences is of the essence (Riley, 1995, p.1). Notwithstanding the fact in relation to colour, that it is one of the most understandable and noticeable attributes of the world, there is a huge quantity of diverse theories in relation to colour, theories which appear to be propagating rather than lessening. It is in this context that the question ariseshow is it doable that there might be so much incongruity on the subject of what colours are, and is it probable that these diverse theorists are not talking regarding the similar object. In illusionary theory of colour, Maund(2006) attemptsto take in hand this query, arguing that its response hold upthe conclusion that the finest theory of colour is a type of anti-realism: the Illusory theory of colours. Maunbd(2006) concludes that on the one hand thereareno colours, as they are normally conceived,nonetheless, on the other handthe world is such thatit is as if there are such colours and such a theoretical propositionhas significant implications, and thatit does notfall precisely into the common classification of philosophical theories, but psychological theories