Diverse and extended philosophical approaches to the art cover also the ontological questions. There are plenty authors who are doing their research to explore the question on the nature of the existence of works of art. What is challenging on the existence of works of art? Artworks are basically things, but necessarily artefact, products of human intentional activity. But from the other point of view, they are just objects, sometimes strange, sometimes old, but (physical) objects. Nobody denies particular function and value of artworks. Nevertheless, this function and value of artworks is hidden in very interesting way. Someone who is not familiar to the work could miss artistic meaning of the work at all. Therefore, we can argue there are not explicit artistic properties in art. On the other hand, physical configuration of the artwork-object offers magnificent and enormous source of meaning, pleasure and content. But there are no other properties then physical. So, philosophers of art should explain how artworks exist in contrary to the nature existence of others entities or artefacts. The text examines the hypothesis of the physical object and R. Wollheim's arguments against this hypothesis. He put the robust argumentation in his famous ‘Art and its objects’. But, the core of the article is the reconstruction of P. Lamarque's approach. Lamarque in his book ‘Art & Object’ distinguishes two elements: work and object. He considers this as a key to explain how works of art exist. The object is considered to be a medium, and work is entity depending on cultural and institutional contexts. Lamarque argues that art occurs where there is specific cultural and institutional background and understanding of objects as works of art. Pure existence of object (physically similar to artwork) does not guarantee existence of artworks. Surprisingly, identical entity could be and could not be artwork in the same time. The difference is in the presence of absence of appropriate cultural and institutional contexts.