Ok so you do! Great answer. Perhaps it is, I was just surprised that it was something I've not seen as being a significant argument against it by any of its detractors, so I was naturally intrigued. Then again, maybe it does hold an explanation; I would be incredibly surprised if there wasn't due to the amount of reflection on the topic, and also due to the simple fact that this is something so blatantly obvious to consider as we spend half of our life's in darkness! I have seen some objectivist theories reference shadows, so maybe it's not as significant as I think. Thanks for your input.

Thank you but I'm not sure you understood my question. This musing is strictly in context with the naive realist theory.

I guess what I'm getting at is, what objective quality would give the lack of light (darkness) it's black colour? I can understand objects holding colour, but what would make this immaterial 'nothing' (darkness), be the colour black objectively in this theory. If this explanation is simply not required for this theory to still be logically coherent then please let me know.

No it isn't related to the philosophy of art, thanks for your response though.

Thanks for all the answers.

If I'm thinking about this correctly then I'm meaning, what is it that gives the darkness it's black colour for the naive realist from an objective stand point, if the blackness doesn't have physical properties to intrinsically accommodate the colour like objective material objects would.