=UNIQUE(FILTER(Gender,(Gender=”Male”)+(Gender=”female”))) We want to offload these ciphers from our matrix-in-progress, and so we’ll submit the data to this close shave: We haven’t much use for the 8,700 empty Gender cells that have collected themselves up there with that 0 nor will we able to press ahead with the solitary entry for the Brazlian artist Roberto Marcelo, whose gender has somehow been reported as NULL. We’ve again mustered the dynamic array UNIQUE function (we called upon it in Part 1, if memory serves me correctly), which here braces the nested YEAR function that shakes out the years from the exhibition start dates i.e., in excerpt: Given that necessity, this formula in say, C5, seems to work: ExhibitionBeginDate) contain precisely that – full-bodied dates – our formula needs to ferret just the years from those data, and pour these into the column. Let us begin, then, by minting a new sheet and raising that column of years, a step which in turn raises a question: because the date fields (e.g. But I want to apply the dynamic array strategy to the task for two reasons: one, to demonstrate exactly how it works, and two, to hint at a larger, looming intent, one possibly strategized by Microsoft: to position dynamic array functions as a formula-driven alternative to pivot tables, at least in part. After all, I want to see something like a column of years teamed with a perpendicular row of gender identifiers, and some numbers shipped into all those year-gender cell intersections – and that prospect has pivot table written all over it. How about, for example, a proportioning of gender by exhibition year – that is, an envisioning of exhibition numbers for each year along the male/female axis? Question 2: does that sound like a job for a pivot table? It sure does.
Hardly and in fact, curmudgeon that I am, I want to use them again. OK they’re not as new now as they were then, but that doesn’t mean they’ve overstepped their sell-by. Part 1 counted the numbers of installations at MOMA dotting the 61 years between 19 plied by women artists, a sum greased by a couple of Excel’s new and cool dynamic array functions. There was a Part 1 to this distended duology of l ooks at gender at the Museum of Modern art compiled by Anna Jacobson, the party of the first part having been issued a president or so ago. If there’s a Part 1 can a Part 2 be far behind? And while I’m answering the question only because you’ve asked it, the answer is yes.
0 kommentar(er)
