Billy Monk and the Glorious Grit of The Catacombs

The Catacombs was one of several night time venues in Cape Town during the apartheid era, but it differed in who passed through its doors. Sailors, musicians, sex workers, and local residents shared the same space with relatively little interference.

Cape Town in the 1950s and 1960s supported a small but persistent night time economy shaped by the city’s port. Merchant ships, naval vessels, and fishing fleets ensured a steady flow of transient workers with disposable income and limited interest in local social conventions. Clubs, bars, and informal drinking spaces clustered around this economy, catering less to residents than to people passing through.

The Catacombs occupied a practical position within this ecosystem. Located in a white designated area but close to the docks and adjacent to District Six, it sat at a crossroads of movement. Sailors arrived with shore leave to use up. Musicians crossed over from nearby neighbourhoods. Sex workers and service staff followed demand rather than zoning laws. The club did not advertise itself as inclusive or oppositional. It simply stayed open late and did not ask too many questions.

Apartheid legislation relied on surveillance, documentation, and routine enforcement. Yet the system was uneven in its application, particularly at night. Policing resources were limited, and venues connected to tourism and shipping were often treated with a degree of tolerance. Authorities understood that sailors caused trouble when bored and spent money when entertained. The Catacombs existed within this logic, operating in a space where enforcement was inconsistent and discretion often prevailed.

Inside, the club was unremarkable in physical terms. It was cramped, poorly lit, and heavily worn. The décor was functional rather than decorative. Furniture was mismatched, walls were scuffed, and the floor was regularly slick with spilled alcohol. Music, often jazz, filled the room late into the night. The atmosphere was noisy and intimate, with little separation between performers and audience.

What distinguished The Catacombs was not spectacle but proximity. People stood close together out of necessity rather than choice. Conversations overlapped. Arguments erupted and dissolved. Relationships formed quickly and often ended just as abruptly. In a society structured around separation, this enforced closeness produced a social environment that ran counter to official expectations.

The Immorality Act of 1957 criminalised interracial relationships and reinforced the idea that intimacy across racial lines was a threat to social order. In practice, the law depended on visibility and denunciation. Inside The Catacombs, neither was easily achieved. Lighting was low, patrons were transient, and discretion was part of the culture. Relationships that would have drawn attention elsewhere passed without comment.

This didn't make the club immune to risk. Police raids occurred across Cape Town’s nightlife, and violence was a constant possibility in spaces fuelled by alcohol and frustration. But compared to most public venues, The Catacombs allowed a degree of social flexibility that was difficult to find elsewhere.

Billy Monk On The Door

Billy Monk entered this environment not as an observer but as a participant. By the early 1960s, he was working as a bouncer at The Catacombs, responsible for maintaining order in a space where tempers flared and boundaries were routinely tested.

Monk’s life followed no obvious trajectory. He described himself as a drifter, and his employment history reflected a series of short lived occupations, including leather sandal making and crayfish poaching. Stability did not appear to interest him. What did was access to people, movement, and informal economies.

Those who knew him described him as volatile and charismatic in equal measure. He had a short temper and was willing to use physical force when necessary. At the same time, he was deeply embedded in Cape Town’s underground social networks. His bisexuality placed him within a marginalised community that relied on discretion and mutual recognition. He belonged to the world he photographed, which shaped how he was received.

Monk began taking photographs for practical reasons. Using a borrowed Pentax camera, he photographed patrons during the night and sold prints directly to them. The transaction was straightforward. People wanted souvenirs. Monk wanted additional income. There was no sense that the images were being made for posterity.

The photographs were taken quickly, often mid conversation or between dances. Subjects were rarely posed. Monk did not ask people to perform or explain themselves. He photographed what he saw, from where he stood. This vantage point, often just inside the club’s entrance or near the bar, allowed him to capture a steady stream of interactions.

Japanese sailors appear frequently in the photographs, a reminder of apartheid’s contradictions. Classified as “honorary white” for economic convenience, they were permitted access to spaces denied to Black South Africans. Monk’s camera treats them no differently to anyone else in the room. They drink, pose, smile, and lean into the social life around them.

Craig Cameron Mackintosh, archivist and manager of Monk’s estate, has explained that the work was never intended to carry political weight. “Through research, interviews and reading old letters written by Monk, it’s evident that he had no intention of making any social statements with his work. He was simply documenting an exciting world that he was a part of and had nightly access to.”

Ordinary life under extraordinary restriction

Viewed decades later, Monk’s photographs acquire significance through contrast. Apartheid depended on constant categorisation and enforcement. Every document, pass, and restriction reinforced difference. Monk’s images do the opposite. They show people in close proximity, behaving in ways that assume equality rather than hierarchy.

There is no overt defiance in the photographs. No raised fists or deliberate gestures. Instead, there is laughter, boredom, affection, irritation, and fatigue. These ordinary expressions undermine the rigidity of the system by revealing how difficult it was to regulate human behaviour completely.

The Catacombs was not unique in this respect. Similar dynamics existed in jazz clubs, shebeens, and informal venues across South Africa. What sets Monk’s work apart is the consistency with which these moments were recorded, and the fact that they were recorded by someone who belonged to the environment rather than observing from outside.

The club’s relationship to District Six adds further historical weight. District Six was one of Cape Town’s most culturally active areas, known for its musicians, artists, and dense social networks. From the late 1960s onwards, it was declared a white area under the Group Areas Act. Residents were forcibly removed, homes demolished, and communities dispersed across the Cape Flats.

By the late 1970s, much of District Six had been reduced to empty land. Monk’s photographs, taken before this destruction was complete, capture people connected to that world at a moment when its social infrastructure was still intact.

Ashraf Jamal has written, “In a society, South Africa under apartheid, that sought to objectify the world, to reduce its people to objects, Monk’s resistance is as ethical as it is existential, as metaphysical as it is mysterious.” While the language is abstract, the point is grounded in the photographs’ refusal to categorise.

Images made to circulate quietly

For those who bought them, Monk’s photographs were not artworks but personal objects. Sailors carried them between ports. Couples kept them privately. Sex workers used them as records of regulars or familiar faces. These images circulated quietly, often hidden from view.

The photographic style reflects this intimacy. Monk’s flash is direct and unsparing, flattening features and eliminating shadows. Yet the effect is not harsh. Subjects meet the camera without self consciousness. They appear comfortable being seen.

Unlike photographers such as Roger Ballen or Diane Arbus, Monk did not emphasise strangeness or alienation. His subjects are not framed as symbols or spectacles. They are participants in a shared environment, photographed by someone who stood among them night after night.

Loss, rediscovery, and delayed attention

Monk did not live to see his work recognised beyond the club. After his death, the photographs might easily have disappeared. Their survival owes much to South African photographer Jack de Villiers, who discovered Monk’s contact sheets in an abandoned Cape Town studio in 1979. The sheets were carefully numbered and dated, suggesting a quiet discipline behind the casual production.

De Villiers organised an exhibition at Johannesburg’s Market Gallery in 1982. Monk never attended. He was killed in a drunken bar fight on his way to the exhibition following a minor dispute. Lin Sampson later recalled, “Monk died protecting his friend Lionel in a tacky argument over moving furniture… ‘Now you’ve gone ’n’ killed me,’ he said.”

For years, the work remained marginal. A 1993 exhibition at the South African National Gallery, From the Bridge to the Catacombs Club, brought renewed attention, but broader recognition came slowly. International interest grew in the early 2000s, leading to Monk’s inclusion in the Brighton Biennale in 2010 and a retrospective at the Stevenson Gallery.

What the photographs still offer

The Catacombs no longer exists, and the conditions that allowed it to operate have shifted. What remains are Monk’s photographs and the social record they preserve. They do not explain apartheid or document its mechanisms. Instead, they show how people lived alongside it, navigating its constraints through habit, pragmatism, and quiet disregard.

Their value lies in what they capture without trying to. Ordinary social life, recorded without commentary, becomes historical evidence. The photographs remind us that systems of control are experienced unevenly, and that even rigid structures depend on constant maintenance to endure.

---