I really don't think so.
I think of propaganda of the deed as being specifically a violent act such as an assassination, robbery, bombing, etc. which is intended to inflict material harm on capitalists or the state, inspire other people to follow suit, and possibly also help fund the revolution (in the case of say a bank robbery).
While I can appreciate that (some) literally violent actions could potentially also be read as a form of performance art, I have no idea how a film, a novel, or a painting could be considered propaganda of the deed, since these things are quite unlikely to cause anyone physical harm. To my mind this is a pretty obvious distinction. Art-making operates at the level of superstructure rather than attacking the material base of society.
I don't think the problem is that art is "corrupted," exactly. I'm pretty sure the problem is that art has been subsumed by capital. For a good illustration of one way this works I highly recommend watching this if you haven't already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yea4qSJMx4
It could definitely be worthwhile to try and make art which resists its role in capitalism, but I think if you believe your art conforms to a rubric of violent revolutionary political activity from the 19th century, then it ... probably won't be very good?
Also this is very worth reading: