But, with that in mind, we could say that Propaganda, at the far end of the spectrum, exists solely for the message it carries, and Art, on the far other end of the spectrum, exists for itself. Many of your answers seemed to have political propaganda in mind but that doesn't have to be the case.
I would say: "Propaganda" is simply a means to an end as "Art" is both an end and a means unto itself.
For instance, if no one on the planet ever heard my music, I would still write and sing. Now the fact that others do listen to it, and I make a living doing it means that at times it must be modified. This doesn't mean it has become propaganda but certain neutral changes may need to be made in order to accommodate a listener. (Here's some advice: When you have listeners, you get to sing more often.)
Propaganda doesn't have to be negative, but people generally despise it when they recognize it (as viewed here in your responses). People despise it because it isn't sincere. It isn't something you say because you "want" to say it, its something you say because you "have" to say it. Even if the motive behind it is pure, it still repulses people if they even feel that "motive behind it" behind it.
Art certainly can and should have tell a story, but if people feel that it only exists to prove a point or express a message then it turns them off. It certainly turns me off. No matter how "true" it is, I'm just not interested in it if you don't believe in it yourself. I'm not saying that we should only do what we want to do. A community expression should at least attempt to include the community. Still, I think we should create art and write songs we actually mean. Not just what we're supposed to sing.
Do you think that "church" art/music feels more like art or propaganda? Is this good? Should it change? How should it change?