In his book Beyond Art, Dominic McIver Lopes presents a multitude of arguments about main problems in the philosophy of art but centred on the problem of defining what is art and what is a work of art. He argues for “buck passing” theory of art. According to this theory, the task is passed to philosophical theories which, first, have to find necessary and sufficient conditions, or at least, some non-trivial conditions what makes each kind of art exactly that kind (...) of art. It has a form: “X is a work of art if and only if X is a work of K, where K is an art”. Lopes offers support for his theory through many arguments around problems of aesthetic appreciation, aesthetic properties, value, appreciative kinds and practices, media used in various artforms, etc. He tries to show that theory is more viable and more informative than its competitors. I present and critically assess some of the claims from the book; it seems that, according to a form of the theory, we can do without the concept of “art” altogether. (shrink)